Federal Communications Commission 

Office of Plans and Policy 

445 12th Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20554 

OPP Working Paper Series 

A Proposal for a Rapid 

Transition to 

Market Allocation of 

Spectrum 

November 2002 

Evan Kwerel 

John Williams 

38 
 The FCC Office of Plans and Policy's Working Paper Series presents staff analysis 

and research in various states. These papers are intended to stimulate discussion and critical 

comment within the FCC, as well as outside the agency, on issues in telecommunications 

policy. Titles may include preliminary work and progress reports, as well as completed 

research. The analyses and conclusions in the Working Paper Series are those of the authors 

and do not necessarily reflect the views of other members of the Office of Plans and Policy, 

other Commission staff, or the Commission itself. Given the preliminary character of some 

titles, it is advisable to check with authors before quoting or referencing these Working 

Papers in other publications. This document is available on the FCC's World Wide Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov/opp/workingp.html. The inside back cover contains a partial list of 

previous titles. 
i

A Proposal for a Rapid Transition to 

Market Allocation of Spectrum

Evan Kwerel 

John Williams* 

Federal Communications Commission 

Office of Plans and Policy 

Federal Communications Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20554 

November 2002 

OPP Working Paper No. 38 

Abstract 

Presently only about 7 percent of the most valuable spectrum is available for market allocation. 

To facilitate the rapid transition from administrative allocation of spectrum to market allocation, this 

paper proposes that the FCC (1) reallocate restricted spectrum to flexible use; (2) conduct large-scale, 

two-sided auctions of spectrum voluntarily offered by incumbents together with any unassigned spectrum 

held by the FCC, and (3) provide incumbents with incentives to participate in such “band restructuring” 

auctions by immediately granting participants flexibility and allowing them to keep the proceeds from the 

sale of their spectrum. Incumbents choosing not to participate would be allowed to continue current 

operations and would receive full flexibility in 5 years. Auction participants would stand to benefit from 

the increased value of their spectrum due to immediate flexibility and efficient restructuring. An 

incumbent would not be required to sell to get flexibility as long as it participates in the auction. Even if a 

license is not sold, the simple act of including the spectrum in the auction would make the opportunity 

cost of holding a license more apparent. By ensuring that most interdependent spectrum is up for sale at 

the same time, this proposal would facilitate a rapid and efficient restructuring of spectrum rights and use. 

We propose an initial implementation that in as little as 2 years could restructure 438 MHz of this most 

valuable spectrum, increasing the total available for market allocation from 7 percent to 23 percent. 

__________________________________ 

*The authors are grateful to Gerald Faulhaber, David Sappington, Tom Hazlett, Greg Rosston, Doug 

Webbink, Trey Hanbury, Sherille Ismail and Kenneth Carter for their helpful suggestions and comments. 

We give special thanks to Gerald Faulhaber and David Sappington for their support and encouragement. 

Of course, all remaining errors are our own. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the AEIBrookings Joint Center Conference, Practical Steps to Spectrum Markets, November 9, 2001. 

The FCC Office of Plans and Policy's Working Paper Series presents staff analysis and research in 

various states. These papers are intended to stimulate discussion and critical comment within the FCC, as 

well as outside the agency, on issues in communications policy. Titles may include preliminary work and 

progress reports, as well as completed research. The analyses and conclusions in the Working Paper 

Series are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of other members of the Office of 

Plans and Policy, other Commission Staff, or any Commissioner. Given the preliminary character of some 

titles, it is advisable to check with authors before quoting or referencing these working papers in other 

publications. This document is available on the FCC’s World Wide Web site at 

http://www.fcc.gov/opp/workingp.html.
ii

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ ii 

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... iv 

A Proposal for a Rapid Transition to Market Allocation of Spectrum........................................... 1 

1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1 

2 Elements of a Market Regime for Spectrum........................................................................... 3 

2.1 Flexibility of Use ............................................................................................................ 3 

2.2 Exhaustive assignment of spectrum rights...................................................................... 4 

2.3 Exclusive licenses ........................................................................................................... 5 

2.4 Proper definition of interference rights........................................................................... 6 

2.5 Special provisions for low-power devices ...................................................................... 7 

3 Elements of an Efficient Transition to Spectrum Markets...................................................... 8 

3.1 Speed............................................................................................................................... 9 

3.2 Low transaction costs...................................................................................................... 9 

3.3 Transparency................................................................................................................... 9 

3.4 Liquidity........................................................................................................................ 10 

3.5 Participation .................................................................................................................. 10 

3.6 Simultaneity .................................................................................................................. 11 

3.7 Package Bidding ........................................................................................................... 14 

4 A Proposed Transition Market Mechanism: Band-Restructuring Auctions........................ 16 

4.1 Simultaneous two-sided auction with package bidding................................................ 16 

4.2 Voluntary participation is the quid pro quo for flexibility............................................ 19 

4.3 An incumbent need not sell its license.......................................................................... 21 

4.4 Efficient and fair division of auction proceeds............................................................. 22 

4.5 FCC conducted band restructuring auctions................................................................ 23 

5 What Spectrum Should be Restructured? ............................................................................. 24 

5.1 300 MHz to 3000 MHz................................................................................................. 25 

5.2 Eliminating difficult bands from the initial implementation ........................................ 26 

Federal government spectrum............................................................................................... 28 

Core TV spectrum................................................................................................................. 30 

Unlicensed bands .................................................................................................................. 30 

Non-exclusively licensed bands and bands with many small licenses ................................. 31 

Currently flexible spectrum .................................................................................................. 32

Other bands excluded from initial implementation .............................................................. 33 

5.3 Our proposal - 438 MHz of additional spectrum for market allocation ....................... 33 

The 700 MHz bands.............................................................................................................. 33 

The ITFS/MMDS bands. ...................................................................................................... 34 

The 2 GHz MSS bands ......................................................................................................... 35 

The 1710-1755 MHz transfer band and 2110 MHz to 2165 MHz bands ............................. 35 

An alternative, smaller auction ............................................................................................. 36 

6 Additional Issues................................................................................................................... 36 

6.1 Legal authority.............................................................................................................. 36 

6.2 Incentives to adopt our proposal – winners and losers ................................................. 38 

7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 40 
iii

Appendix: Spectrum Rights and Interference Control Under a Flexible Licensing Regime ....... 42 

Flexible versus traditional licenses ........................................................................................... 42 

Interference between licensees.................................................................................................. 44 

Limiting transmitter spill-over.............................................................................................. 45

Dealing with strong-signal interference................................................................................ 45 

Licensees’ right to exclude non-interfering uses....................................................................... 48 

References..................................................................................................................................... 50 
iv

Executive Summary 

The current administrative allocation of spectrum has led to shortages and waste. Markets 

can move spectrum to its highest value use both now and in the future, even as technology and 

consumer preferences change. But moving to an efficient market allocation will require a large 

scale restructuring of presently assigned and unassigned spectrum into flexible packages of rights 

that can be readily traded in the marketplace. 

This paper proposes that the FCC facilitate the rapid transition from administrative 

allocation of spectrum to market allocation by (1) reallocating a large amount of presently 

restricted spectrum to flexible use; (2) conducting large-scale, two-sided “band restructuring” 

auctions of spectrum voluntarily offered by incumbents together with any unassigned spectrum 

held by the FCC; and (3) providing incumbents with incentives to participate in such auctions, 

by immediately granting participants flexibility and allowing them to keep the auction proceeds 

from the sale of their spectrum. Incumbents who choose not to participate in the auction would 

be allowed to continue to operate under the terms of their current licenses and would receive full 

flexibility after 5 years. 

 Under this approach, incumbents would have strong incentives to participate voluntarily 

and to allow their spectrum to move quickly to higher valued uses. By doing so they would 

share in the gains from immediate flexibility as well as from the rapid and efficient combining 

and restructuring of their spectrum together with highly complementary spectrum assigned to 

other incumbents and held by the FCC. Incumbents would not have to sell their spectrum to gain 

flexibility as long as they participate in the auction. Even if a license is not sold, a useful purpose 

will have been served by inducing the incumbent to participate thereby making the opportunity 

cost of holding a license more apparent. By ensuring that most interdependent spectrum is up for 

sale at the same time, this proposal would facilitate a rapid and efficient restructuring of 

spectrum rights and use. 

Some have suggested that simply granting incumbents flexibility in the use of their spectrum 

is all the Commission needs to do to ensure the emergence of an efficient market allocation. 

However, our analysis suggests that this simple approach will not suffice. There are a number of 

reasons for this conclusion: 

First, just granting incumbents flexibility would not make spectrum held by the FCC and 

NTIA available for flexible use. In many bands, spectrum is assigned on an as needed basis and 

unassigned spectrum is retained by the FCC or NTIA. This unassigned spectrum needs to be 

licensed so that it can be combined efficiently with encumbered spectrum. 

Second, it would not reconfigure existing spectrum rights into tradable flexible rights. In 

many bands, the spectrum assigned to licensees is defined as a detailed set of technical 

specifications on transmitters (e.g., frequency, bandwidth, power, modulation type, location, etc.) 

that cannot be changed without government approval. To provide licensees with technical and 

service flexibility, these “input” specifications need to be redefined in terms of “outputs”, such as 

power limits at the boundaries between spectrum blocks and geographic areas. Subject to these 

output limits, each licensee would then be free to offer a variety of services and deploy 
v

transmitters and system architectures of various designs within its licensed spectrum block and 

area. While converting input limits to output limits is necessary to give incumbents flexibility, it 

may not be practical for licenses covering only a small amount of spectrum, e.g., point-to-point 

microwave licenses. Such small licenses may need to be combined together or dissolved into an 

overlay license to form packages large enough to afford any practical opportunity for flexibility. 

Third, it would not solve coordination problems that can arise when all relevant spectrum is 

not available simultaneously for purchase. A single large-scale two-sided auction for all 

exclusively allocated spectrum would help bidders to combine encumbered and unencumbered 

spectrum into efficient packages. It would also allow bidders to efficiently choose among 

substitutable spectrum licenses. It is not obvious whether a private party could successfully run 

such a large-scale band-restructuring auction or what happens if multiple firms wish to run an 

auction for the same spectrum. 

Fourth, it would not solve critical incentive problems that can prevent welfare-enhancing 

trades. Conflicting incentives within firms, sometimes referred to as the principal-agent problem 

may prevent efficient participation. The interests of spectrum managers within a firm are not 

necessarily aligned with the interests of the firm as a whole. Also incumbents may have 

incentives to strategically hold out for a bigger share of the gains from putting spectrum to higher 

value use. The FCC may be in the best position to conduct a large-scale two-sided bandrestructuring auction and solve the incentive problems associated with ensuring participation and 

mitigating holdouts. 

We conclude that the FCC can play a unique and profound transitional role in overcoming 

these shortcomings by organizing a series of large-scale spectrum auctions in which any 

unassigned spectrum can be combined efficiently with spectrum voluntarily supplied by 

incumbent licensees. Such large-scale band-restructuring auctions would allow spectrum users to 

quickly unscramble the inefficient spectrum allocations that have resulted from eighty years of 

central planning, and thereby allow spectrum to be employed in the manner that best serves the 

public. We propose an initial implementation that in as little as 2 years could restructure 438 

MHz of spectrum in the 300 to 3000 MHz range and significantly reduce current spectrum 

shortages for high demand uses. Added to presently flexible spectrum, the proposal would triple 

the proportion of spectrum in this range available for market allocation from approximately 7 

percent to 23 percent. 
1

 A Proposal for a Rapid Transition to Market 

Allocation of Spectrum 

Evan Kwerel 

John Williams 

1 Introduction 

A consensus is forming that the current process of allocating radio spectrum by 

administrative decision-making is in serious need of reform. In a recent press conference the 

Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Michael Powell, said, “Put simply, our 

Nation’s approach to spectrum allocation is seriously fractured...”1

 Billions of dollars of 

cumulative loss to the U.S. economy have been attributed to inefficient spectrum allocations 

under the current system.2

 The solution, according to most economists, is to replace the current 

administrative allocation with a spectrum market.3

 As Chairman Powell put it, “It is important 

that the Commission move from its traditional spectrum management paradigm of “command 

and control” to a paradigm of market-oriented allocation policy to provide more flexible 

allocations that allow multiple uses so that spectrum can be put to its highest and best use.”4 But 

specific proposals for a rapid transition to a broad-based spectrum market have been lacking. 

While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has made incremental progress in 

making flexible spectrum allocations, the process is far too slow. Currently, only about seven 

percent of the most valuable spectrum (in 300 MHz - 3,000 MHz range) is available for market 

allocation, i.e., is flexibly allocated and exclusively and exhaustively licensed.5

 The rest is 

 

1

 Powell (2001, p.5) 

2

 Jackson, Kelley and Rohlfs (1991) estimated the lost consumer welfare from the 10 year delay in cellular service at 

about $86 billion, and Hausman (1997, p.23) estimated it at about $34 billion per year. 

3 See for example, Coase (1959), Hazlett (2001), Katz (1996), Kwerel and Williams (1992), Rosston and Steinberg 

(1997), Shelanski and Huber (1998), Webbink (1980, 1987), White (2001), 37 Concerned Economists (2001). 

4

 Powell (2001, p.5) 

5

 The 300 MHz – 3,000 MHz range has propagation characteristics that make it ideally suited for mobile 

applications. The primary spectrum currently available for flexible use, and thus subject to market allocation, is 50 

MHz allocated to cellular, 90 MHz allocated to PCS and 15 MHz allocated to SMR. An additional 30 MHz of PCS 

spectrum should be available for flexible use soon pending the resolution of the Nextwave settlement. It should also 

be noted that use of some of the PCS spectrum is limited to “designated entities” so it is not fully available to the 

market. 
2

restricted to specific uses, technologies and/or users, is licensed on a shared basis, or is only 

partially licensed under an administrative system that rations spectrum on a first-come or as 

needed basis with unassigned spectrum held by the FCC or the National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration (NTIA) for future assignment. 

This paper proposes a means to speed the transition from the current restricted spectrum 

allocation to an efficient market allocation. A key aspect of the proposal is the use of a two-sided 

auction in which the FCC would offer unassigned spectrum in a band (sometimes referred to as 

"overlay licenses" or "white space") simultaneously with encumbered spectrum offered by 

existing licensees. The simultaneous auction of encumbered and unencumbered spectrum in a 

band would allow bidders to acquire highly complementary spectrum assets quickly in a single 

event rather than through the current sequential process consisting of an FCC auction followed 

by post-auction negotiations with incumbents. Ideally, all technically fungible spectrum, e.g., 

everything from 300 to 3000 MHz, would be included in a single auction. This ideal scenario 

would also include spectrum now reserved for government use6 and bands that might be used for 

the relocation of incumbents. However, practical considerations that we will discuss below 

constrain us to propose something more limited as an initial implementation. The nature of 

current use also suggests that certain bands will be more suitable for this approach than others. 

Taking these factors into account we propose an initial implementation that we believe is 

practical yet large enough to provide significant benefits. If implemented, it could make 

available in as little as two to five years 438 MHz of very desirable spectrum for such potentially 

high value uses as next generation mobile services.7 Assuming satisfactory results from the 

initial application of this approach, we propose that it be extended more broadly across a wide 

range of spectrum to bring about a permanent, systemic solution to the spectrum allocation 

problem. 

 There are some other important aspects of our proposal that we will mention here and 

discuss in more detail below. For our proposal to work, incumbents must participate in the 

 

6

 The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce 

has jurisdiction over government spectrum, most of which is used by the Department of Defense. 

7

 Analog voice cellular is considered first generation and digital cellular and PCS second generation. Third 

generation (3G) mobile services will include voice and higher speed data. A more detailed definition is available at 

FCC website http://www.fcc.gov/3G/. 
3

auction. To encourage such participation, we propose that incumbents be allowed to keep all 

proceeds from the sale of encumbered spectrum. To further encourage participation, we propose 

that the spectrum encumbered by an incumbent who does not participate in the auction be frozen 

in its current allocation for five years. Participation would thus become a quid pro quo for 

incumbents' receiving flexibility of use, and what could be a substantial windfall from transfer of 

their spectrum to a higher valued use. We propose to further protect incumbents by allowing 

them to bid on their own licenses in the auction. This would ensure an incumbent's spectrum is 

not sold for less than its value to the incumbent. Since the cost to participate in the auction 

should be small relative to potential gains from flexibility of use, a high level of participation is 

likely. 

In the Section 2 we describe the elements of an "ideal" regime for market allocation of 

spectrum, compare it with the present administrative system, and suggest rule changes that will 

be necessary to transition to a market system. In Section 3 we discuss critical elements of any 

transition mechanism. In Section 4 we describe our specific proposal for an efficient transition 

mechanism and analyze it with respect to the efficiency criteria developed in Section 3. In 

Section 5 we examine practical issues that will arise in applying our proposal to different bands 

in the 300 to 3000 MHz range, and conclude with a table proposing specific bands for initial 

implementation. In Section 6 we discuss legal authority and the incentives to implement our 

proposal. Our final conclusions are presented in Section 7. 

2 Elements of a Market Regime for Spectrum 

 Before explaining our proposal in detail, we review the basic components of an ideal 

regulatory regime that ensures an efficient market allocation of spectrum. Comparing this ideal 

with the current situation suggests the kind of rule changes that will be needed to implement an 

efficient market allocation.8

 

2.1 Flexibility of Use 

The Ideal: In a market allocation of spectrum, markets, not central authorities, determine 

spectrum uses and users. An ideal market allocation should impose no restrictions on spectrum 

 

8

 For additional discussion on efficient definition of flexible spectrum rights see the appendix. 
4

uses and users beyond those necessary to limit interference, to prevent anti-competitive 

concentration, and to comply with international agreements. Spectrum should not be set aside 

for federal users or for specific non-federal users such as public safety providers, and public 

users should be allowed both to sell spectrum and buy spectrum from the private sector. For 

example, police and fire departments should be able to sell some of their spectrum and use the 

proceeds to buy new spectrum-conserving radios that could provide greater capacity and 

interoperability. 

Current Situation: Most spectrum is currently designated for specific uses or users, e.g., 

federal government agencies, state and local public safety agencies, broadcasting, navigation, 

radar, satellites, etc. This division of spectrum by use or user category is referred to as "block 

allocations" and the categories are generally referred to as "services". The degree of flexibility 

permitted in different services varies widely. For example the Personal Communications Service 

(PCS) permits any fixed or mobile use and technology, whereas the Television Broadcasting 

service is quite narrowly defined both in the nature of the use permitted and the technology. 

Presently only about seven percent of the 300 MHz to 3000 MHz range is allocated for flexible 

use.9

 Instituting an efficient market allocation across a wide range of spectrum will thus require 

departures from the current system of block allocations. 

2.2 Exhaustive assignment of spectrum rights 

The Ideal: If a market is to ensure efficient allocation of all spectrum, all spectrum rights 

should be assigned exhaustively in all dimensions (frequency, geography, time and use). Thus, as 

part of the general transition to a market allocation system, the FCC and NTIA should assign all 

presently unassigned spectrum in bands where the assignment is presently incomplete. This will 

allow the market to combine presently assigned and unassigned spectrum rights into efficient 

packages. 

Current System: Under the current block allocation approach, spectrum in many bands is 

assigned on an as-needed basis, and licensees are given only as much as is deemed to be needed 

for the specific system or service contemplated. The FCC and NTIA hold unassigned spectrum 

 

9

 The primary spectrum currently available for flexible use, and thus subject to market allocation, is 50 MHz 

allocated to cellular, 90 MHz allocated to PCS and 15 MHz allocated to SMR. An additional 30 MHz of PCS 

spectrum should be available for flexible use soon pending the resolution of the Nextwave settlement. 
5

in reserve for future assignment. Transitioning to the ideal system will require exhaustive 

licensing of unassigned spectrum. The FCC’s approach in the PCS bands provides a useful 

model.10 The FCC exhaustively assigned spectrum blocks over large geographic areas with 

interference protection for incumbent uses: it licensed the “Swiss cheese” and protected the 

“holes.” Overlay licenses, such as defined in the PCS bands, allow for immediate use of clear 

(unencumbered) spectrum and integration of occupied (encumbered) spectrum as it is cleared. 

2.3 Exclusive licenses 

The Ideal: With licenses for the exclusive use of the spectrum, private parties have the 

ability and incentive to make efficient choices about spectrum use. Exclusivity internalizes both 

the costs and benefits of decisions about spectrum use and minimizes coordination and other 

kinds of transaction costs. Spectrum rights should thus be assigned exclusively in frequency, 

space and time.11 Assigning spectrum exclusively does not preclude the use of intensive 

engineering techniques that permit economically efficient sharing of spectrum by multiple users, 

as for example, various space, time or frequency multiplexing techniques. Licensees with 

exclusive rights would have the correct incentives to develop and implement such techniques to 

maximize the value of their spectrum. 

The Current System: In some bands, e.g., the 450 MHz private land mobile radio service 

(PLMRS) bands, spectrum is licensed on a shared basis.12 Thus, multiple licensees in an area are 

authorized to use the same frequency channel on a time-shared basis. Sharing etiquettes are 

imposed to facilitate coordination and prevent hoarding. For example, licensees may be required 

to listen before they transmit to avoid interference. In shared bands, just providing technical and 

service flexibility would not create the correct incentives for economically efficient use of the 

spectrum, because licensees can not capture the benefits from deploying spectrum-conserving 

equipment. When a licensee reduces its usage in a shared use regime, it makes more spectrum 

 

10 For a detailed description of the licensing and band clearing approach used in the PCS bands, see Crampton, 

Kwerel and Williams (1998), pp. 660-669. 

11Because the Communications Act prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from transferring title to 

radio frequency spectrum to third parties, see 47 U.S.C.A. § 301, licensees cannot “own” spectrum. We do not 

believe that licensees must have fee simple ownership of spectrum for markets to efficiently assign and allocate 

spectrum. It is sufficient for the Commission to provide for exhaustive, flexible, exclusive, transferable spectrumusage rights and strong license-renewal expectancies. 

12 FCC (1995b), para. 2. 
6

available for use by other licensees. But absent compensation for the benefits that accrue to 

others, licensees do not have sufficient incentives to conserve on spectrum use, congestion 

develops and economic output is less than optimal. This problem is sometimes referred to as a 

"tragedy of the commons," and can occur in non-exclusively licensed spectrum as well as 

unlicensed spectrum (see discussion of low power devices, below).13 To provide the correct 

incentives in a flexible market–based regime, shared use licenses should be replaced with 

exclusive licenses. However, converting shared spectrum to exclusively licensed spectrum 

presents difficult transition problems that are discussed in more detail in Section 5. 

2.4 Proper definition of interference rights 

The Ideal: To provide licensees maximum technical and service flexibility, spectrum 

emissions rights between licensees should be defined in terms of power limits at the boundaries 

between spectrum blocks and geographic areas together with maximum in-band power limits. 

Subject to these output limits, each licensee should be free to deploy transmitters within its 

licensed spectrum block and area without coordination with licensees in adjoining blocks and 

areas. Conversely, each licensee must design its own receiving system to tolerate permissible 

levels of interfering power from adjoining licensees. Under this definition of interference rights, 

receiver deployment near license boundaries may be significantly constrained because of 

potential interference from neighboring licensees. However, licensees can use a variety of 

interference mitigation techniques to deploy receivers in such areas. They may also modify the 

default limits by mutual consent and agree to coordinate operations to facilitate a more efficient 

deployment in boundary areas. Negotiated changes in the initially set boundary limits should be 

reported to the FCC for purposes of registration to assist subsequent market transactions. 

The Current System: The general approach of using boundary limits has been used 

successfully in the PCS and other flexibly allocated bands. However, in many bands, the 

existing interference rights are often defined as a set of technical specifications such as 

frequency, power, modulation type, location, direction, etc., that cannot be changed without 

further approval. Where feasible, the FCC and NTIA should redefine these current licensed 

rights into explicit, physical flexible rights based on boundary limits, with flexibility to deploy 

 

13 Hardin (1968). 
7

transmitters within those boundaries. This is most feasible for large exclusive licenses, such as 

UHF TV or satellite licenses that exclusively encumber a large block of spectrum over a large 

area. However, licenses covering only a small amount of spectrum, e.g., point-to-point licenses, 

may not afford significant flexibility even if converted to boundary limits. In such bands, it may 

be necessary to merge many existing licenses into one or dissolve them into a larger, flexible 

overlay license. Also, any conversion of current licenses to flexible licenses with boundary limits 

will require additional, specific technical rules to protect current uses. Boundary limits provide 

an appropriate interference regime for new uses on a forward going basis, but do not address the 

need to protect existing systems. 

2.5 Special provisions for low-power devices 

Some uses of spectrum, such as cordless telephones, 802.11 wireless networks, and garage 

door openers, occupy so little spectrum that it may not be efficient to charge for their use (since 

the opportunity cost of adding devices is virtually zero). Many of the unlicensed devices 

currently accommodated under Part 15 of the FCC's rules may fall into this category. The 

Commission has provided for unlicensed uses by allowing such devices on a non-interfering 

basis in licensed spectrum and by allocating dedicated spectrum for their use. 

Some special administrative provisions for low power devices may be efficient in a market 

system. However, in making decisions about the amount of spectrum allocated to unlicensed 

use, the government should face the opportunity cost of limiting or foreclosing other use. Just as 

the government decides how much land to purchase for public parks, it would decide how much 

spectrum to set aside for unlicensed devices. A market system would also provide the 

opportunity for private spectrum licensees in flexible bands to compete with the government for 

the provision of spectrum for low-power devices, just as private facilities that charge admission 

compete with public parks. Licensees might find it profitable to do so by charging manufacturers 

of such devices to operate on their spectrum. This would allow private licensees to compete on 

the technical protocols and other quality factors instead of relying on government or industry 

committees. 

It may also be efficient to continue to allow low-power, non-interfering uses of licensed 

bands (i.e., limit the right of licensees to exclude such users). If such uses were truly non-
8

interfering, there would be no spectrum opportunity cost to accommodating them in this fashion. 

We assume this to be the case for low power uses now permitted, e.g., radiation from computers 

or receivers, and will be the case for ultra-wide-band (UWB) devices. Moreover, in the UWB 

case, because the emission of the low power devices is spread across a wide range of spectrum, 

the transaction costs of private negotiations with many licensees may be prohibitive. Therefore, 

administrative provisioning for UWB devices may be necessary as a practical matter even if 

spectrum is generally allocated by a market. 

To the extent there is contention among low-power devices, some form of rationing of usage 

among such users may be efficient. This might be accommodated by exclusively licensing the 

low power management rights to one or more "band managers."14 The band manager would 

determine the etiquettes to be used and establish prices to ration demand.15 The band manager 

would also be able to bargain with high power licensees for increased rights, e.g., higher power 

limits, as a market alternative to administrative provisioning, at least for low-power uses that do 

not spread across a great many licensees. 

3 Elements of an Efficient Transition to Spectrum Markets 

As we have discussed, for a market to allocate spectrum efficiently, spectrum rights should 

be flexible and exclusive and all rights should be exhaustively assigned. This is not the situation 

that exists in most bands, where licensees are typically restricted to narrowly defined uses, are 

given only as much spectrum as is determined by the FCC to be "needed" for that use, and in 

some cases must time-share their spectrum. Transitioning from the current administrative system 

to a market allocation will thus require fundamental restructuring and redefinition of rights 

across a wide range of spectrum. The success of the transition will depend on how quickly and 

broadly this is accomplished. 

 

14 The FCC used the band manager approach in a portion of the 700 MHz spectrum reclaimed from TV channels 52-

59, where it assigned "Guard Band Manager" licenses in certain bands adjacent to public safety spectrum. See, FCC 

(2000) 

15 Preferably, there would be more than one band manager to provide the benefits of competition. In any case, 

flexible licensees may be able to compete by providing similar provisions for low power devices, as discussed 

earlier in this section. 
9

Current licensing restrictions do not permit efficient markets to arise naturally, so the FCC 

and NTIA should create a transition market mechanism. We will discuss some desirable 

properties of a transition market mechanism, with the caveat that no perfect mechanism exists.16 

3.1 Speed 

Speed is an essential attribute of a good transition mechanism because delaying the 

widespread market allocation of spectrum could cause tens of billions of dollars in lost benefits 

to consumers.17 Speed should include the time to implement the mechanism, the speed with 

which the mechanism determines an efficient market allocation once implemented, and likely 

post-mechanism delays such as legal challenges. For example, the C block PCS auction took less 

than five months to complete, but most of the spectrum has still not been assigned more than five 

years after the auction closed because of litigation.18 Post-mechanism delays can be more 

significant than delays of applying the mechanism itself. It may be impossible to implement any 

spectrum reform if it is perceived as unfair. 

3.2 Low transaction costs 

A good market mechanism for spectrum should have low transaction costs. This means low 

costs to participate and to run. Participation costs include not only direct out-of-pocket expenses 

but also the time of staff and management to buy or sell spectrum rights. Participation and 

market operation costs should be small relative to the value created by the transactions.19 

3.3 Transparency 

A good market mechanism should be transparent. A transparent process is clearly 

understood by participants and perceived as honest. If it is not, many parties will choose not to 

participate and some efficiency-enhancing trades will not occur. Transparency requires 

consistently enforcing rules and holding participants to their commitments. If, for example, an 

 

16 Myerson and Satterthwaite (1983) have shown that with many sellers and buyers, and voluntary participation, 

there is no efficient exchange mechanism where the required payments to the sellers do not exceed the amount paid 

by the buyers. 

17 See Jackson, Kelley and Rohlfs (1991), Hausman (1997), Kwerel and Williams (1992). 

18 FCC website: http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/summary.html#completed

19 Since increased value is not easily measured, transactions costs are typically considered as a percentage of the 

total revenue from the items sold. 
10

auction winner did not expect to pay the amount it bid in auction, but instead expected to be free 

to negotiate with the seller after the auction closed, the auction might consistently fail to award 

spectrum licenses to the parties that value them the most. Buyers would bid enormous sums for 

spectrum rights, knowing that they would not have to pay their bids, and the auction would be 

meaningless. 

3.4 Liquidity 

High liquidity is another desirable property of a market. In a highly liquid market a buyer or 

seller is always able to make a trade at a price close to a well-established market price. The 

spectrum market will be highly liquid if large portions of spectrum are technically and legally 

substitutable and if there are many sellers and buyers of spectrum, but no one so large that it can 

significantly affect prices. 

Absent a liquid market for spectrum, incumbents do not have good information about the 

value of their spectrum, and potential buyers do not have good information of the cost of 

acquiring spectrum. A liquid market provides this information, and thus facilitates transfers of 

spectrum to its highest value uses. A liquid market for spectrum also reduces the “liquidity risk” 

of investing in spectrum-based services just as liquid financial markets reduce the risk of 

investing in financial assets. Buyers of liquid assets can sell those assets on short notice without 

incurring high search costs to find a buyer willing to pay the market price. A liquid spectrum 

market reduces the risk that a firm will be unable to sell spectrum that it does not need or that it 

will be unable to purchase spectrum that it does need. 

3.5 Participation 

All parties who can gain from trade should have the incentive to participate in the market 

mechanism. Two market failures that may prevent efficient trades are strategic holdouts and 

agents not pursuing the best interest of their principals. Strategic holdouts are a well-known 

phenomenon in large-scale real estate redevelopment projects when multiple incumbents must be 

cleared. Each incumbent who can individually block a project hopes to get a bigger share of the 

gain from development by being the last to settle. In some cases value-enhancing redevelopment 

is significantly delayed. In other cases, the project is changed to work around an incumbent who 

refuses to sell, and sometimes no redevelopment occurs even though it would be highly valuable. 
11

Conflicting incentives within firms, sometimes referred to as the principal-agent problem, is 

the second market failure that may prevent efficient participation.20 The interests of spectrum 

managers within a firm are not necessarily aligned with the interests of the firm as a whole. For 

example, employees responsible for managing a microwave communications system would 

oppose replacing the microwave system with a fiber optic system that would increase overall 

profits, if it means the loss of their jobs. Even changing the use of a firm’s spectrum from fixed 

to mobile applications could damage the career of employees with expertise in only fixed 

applications. Since senior management typically delegates responsibility for spectrum policy 

issues to the managers responsible for spectrum-based communications systems, firms may make 

inefficient choices when faced with policy questions. 

3.6 Simultaneity 

Another property of an efficient market mechanism for spectrum is simultaneity: All highly 

complementary and substitutable spectrum should be available to the market at the same time. 

Ideally most spectrum over a wide frequency range, e.g., 300 MHz to 3,000 MHz, would be 

available to the market during the transition because this entire spectrum block is potentially 

substitutable or might be part of useful aggregations. This includes spectrum under NTIA 

jurisdiction (now reserved for use by the federal government) as well as spectrum under FCC 

jurisdiction (for all other users). Any spectrum that would be useful for relocation of incumbents 

would also be included so that incumbents could buy relocation spectrum at the same time they 

sell current holdings. 

The arguments for simultaneity are those that led the FCC to adopt its current simultaneous 

multiple round design for spectrum auctions.21 Simultaneity provides buyers with information 

about the prices of relevant complements and substitutes, and allows them to act on that 

information – to combine complementary spectrum into the most efficient packages and to 

choose among substitutable spectrum. If complementary items are offered for sale sequentially, 

buyers seeking a package of items will not know how much to bid for those items first put up for 

sale without knowing the likely prices of the complementary items that will be up for sale later. 

 

20 Tirole (1988): 51-55. 

21 FCC (1994a, 1994c), McMillan (1994). 
12

Lacking such information, they must guess and could end up not bidding for an item offered 

early in the sequence of sales because they overestimate the price of a complementary item to be 

sold later. Or they could end up winning an item at too high a price because they underestimated 

the price of a complementary item sold later. 

Although post-auction transactions can reduce the inefficiency from a poorly designed initial 

auction, they cannot eliminate it. The experience of cellular providers combining licenses into 

larger geographic aggregations over many years suggests that such sequential transactions can be 

costly, and experiments provide evidence that sequential auctions will achieve a lower level of 

efficiency than simultaneous auctions when there are many highly complementary items.22

Buyers of substitutable items would face a similar difficulty with sequential sales. If buyers 

guess wrong, items may not be awarded to those with the highest valuations. To illustrate this 

point, suppose there are two licenses, A and B, that are perfect substitutes for three bidders, 1, 2 

and 3. The three bidders have respective valuations of $100, $90 and $80 for either license. 

Suppose license A is put up for sale first and that bidders 1 and 2 incorrectly believe that license 

B will sell for less than $80, while bidder 3 believes that license B will sell for more than $80. 

Then as bidders 1 and 2 drop out of the first auction, waiting to bid on license B, bidder 3 would 

win license A for $80. Bidder 1 would subsequently win license B for $91. But in the efficient 

allocation, bidder 1 would win one license and bidder 2 the other license. This would be the 

outcome in a simultaneous multiple round (ascending bid) auction. Bidder 1 and 2 would each 

win a license and both licenses would sell for the same price, $81 (the lowest price that would 

force bidder 3 to drop out of the auction). In the above example, the inefficient outcome of the 

sequential auction could be corrected if bidder 3 resold license A to bidder 2. But such reselling 

typically entails additional transaction costs. 

Simultaneity is also important for efficiency when there are multiple sellers of substitutable 

items. It ensures that the close substitutes sold are those that are valued least highly by the 

sellers. For example, suppose seller 1 values its license at $70 and seller 2 values an identical 

license at $50. If only one license is sold, it should be seller 2’s license. With sequential sales, 

 

22 See Ledyard, Porter and Rangel (1997) for experimental evidence that simultaneous auctions are more efficient 

than sequential auctions when items are complementary. 
13

incorrect guesses about future prices can result in a sale by a seller with a higher valuation than 

that of a seller of an unsold close substitute. 

Simultaneity has additional efficiency benefits in a two-sided auction. Simultaneity 

provides useful price information for parties that wish to sell some items and purchase substitute 

items. An auction in which both spectrum held by the FCC and incumbent licensees is offered 

simultaneously, would provide incumbents simultaneous information about the prices of 

relocation spectrum that they may wish to buy and the spectrum they now occupy that they may 

wish to sell. If the incumbent’s spectrum and possible relocation spectrum were sold 

sequentially, an incumbent might be reluctant to move because it could not be sure that the 

receipts from selling its spectrum would at least cover the cost of the relocation spectrum and 

other moving costs. 

Simultaneously offering most substitutable spectrum may also reduce the holdout problem 

by reducing the market power of incumbents. When buyers are not dependent on any individual 

seller, potential sellers have little incentive to holdout. Sellers might as well participate in such 

an auction and sell if the price exceeds their reservation price,23 instead of holding out with hope 

of extracting a greater share of the gains from trade in the aftermarket.24 This is especially true 

since participating in a large-scale simultaneous auction would have low transactions cost 

relative to individually negotiating with potential buyers afterwards. The smaller the potential 

gains from holding out, the less likely that these gains will exceed the additional transaction costs 

of ex post negotiations. 

As the scale of an auction increases, the incentive to participate also increases because 

buyers and sellers are more likely to find a match. Buyers would generally rather go to a large 

exchange than a small one because they are more likely to find the spectrum they seek. And 

sellers would rather participate in an exchange with lots of buyers because they are more likely 

to find a party that needs the spectrum they are selling. This may be one of the reasons for the 

continuing success of eBay. To the extent that there are such participation effects in spectrum 

 

23 A reservation price is the minimum price at which a seller is willing to sell. 

24 The aftermarket refers to spectrum license sales that occur outside of an FCC run auction. 
14

markets, private parties may have difficulty organizing such markets.25 Each market maker will 

wish to convince potential participants that it will have the largest exchange, but this cannot be 

true for everyone. These considerations may introduce a coordinating role for government in 

ensuring widespread participation by buyers and sellers. 

3.7 Package Bidding 

Package bidding, which allows bidders to make all-or-nothing bids on packages of licenses, 

without specifying prices for the individual licenses in a package, can increase the efficiency of a 

market mechanism when some items are highly complementary but parties disagree about the 

best way to package the pieces. (If everyone agreed on how to package items, the items should 

just be sold in those packages, like left and right shoes.) In such cases, package bidding 

facilitates efficient aggregation of spectrum across geography and bandwidth. Without package 

bidding, bidders face the “exposure” risk of getting stuck with only part of a desired aggregation 

and paying more than it is worth without the other parts. 

To illustrate the advantage of package bidding, suppose license A or B alone is worth $50 to 

bidder 1, but together they are worth $150. If bidder 1 bids more than $50 on either license, it 

faces the risk of paying more than the license is worth if it doesn’t also win the other license. 

This risk may prevent the bidder from winning a package of licenses even when it is efficient. 

Suppose bidder 2 values license A at $60 and bidder 3 values license B at $80. Also suppose that 

bidders 2 and 3 need only a single license and so place no incremental value on a second license. 

The efficient outcome is for bidder 1 to win both licenses, with a total value of $150, since this 

exceeds the combined value of $140 for bidders 2 and 3. With package bidding, bidder 1 could 

ensure this outcome by bidding $141 for the package AB. In contrast, without package bidding 

bidder 1 might win neither license because it is afraid to raise its bids above the $50 stand-alone 

value of each license. 

Package bidding could also allow for the market to determine band plans. Currently, the 

FCC administratively determines the precise frequency spacing of spectrum licenses including 

whether spectrum should paired or unpaired and the degree to which block sizes and spacing in 

 

25 This is similar to bandwagon effects for networks, such as telephone service or the Internet, where the service is 

more valuable to a consumer the more other consumers use the service. See Rohlfs (2001). 
15

the United States should match those in other countries. Licenses generally are composed of 

paired blocks on the assumption that licensees will employ frequency division duplex (FDD) 

technology that uses separate frequencies for base and subscriber transmitters. On the further 

assumption that licensees will agree to put all base stations in at one end of the paired spectrum 

and subscriber units at the other, less demanding limits on out-of-band emissions are needed than 

if bases and mobiles operate in adjacent spectrum. However, there is growing interest in a 

different duplexing technique, called time division duplex, or TDD, that uses the same spectrum 

for base and mobile transmissions and which may have unique advantages in certain kinds of 

services. Rather than predetermining which technology will be used by mandating a particular 

band plan and pairing scheme, the FCC could allow those choices to be made in the auction. 

Package bidding could provide for a market test of mutually exclusive band plans. Bidders could 

bid on two or more mutually exclusive band plans at the same time and the auction process 

would determine the single band plan that maximizes auction revenue. 

Package bidding may also reduce the holdout problem. Without package bidding, sellers 

may be able to increase their revenue by exploiting the synergistic value of licenses. For 

example, the owner of license B in the above illustration might want to hold out until after bidder 

1 has purchased license A. Regardless of what bidder 1 paid for license A, its gain from also 

acquiring license B is $100. (Suppose bidder 1 paid $61 for license A. If it paid $100 for license 

B, its net loss from A plus B would be $11, the same as if it held only A.) The seller of license B 

would like to get as much of this surplus a possible. But the seller of license A would have the an 

analogous incentive to holdout until bidder 1 has purchased license B. Bidders would want to 

avoid this trap and might choose not to participate in the auction at all. Package bidding helps 

solve this coordination problem. With package bidding, bidder 1 could make a bid up to $150 on 

the package AB without facing any risk of paying more licenses than they are worth to it. Bidder 

1 would never need to commit itself to A without B, or B without A. If either A or B held out, 

the entire package would go unsold. And none of the sellers of the items in the package would be 

in the strategically advantageous position of being the lone holdout. 
16

4 A Proposed Transition Market Mechanism: Band-Restructuring 

Auctions 

The FCC has already achieved success in transitioning to a market allocation of spectrum in 

bands previously limited to point-to-point use, as in the case of PCS,26 and is proceeding to do 

the same in the 700 MHz band for spectrum previously allocated to UHF television.27 Our 

proposal in this paper builds on methods developed in those proceedings and seeks to improve 

and expand their use as a general transition mechanism. The improvements we propose are 

directed at using markets to accelerate the efficient clearing and restructuring of encumbered 

spectrum. The principal feature of our proposed transition market mechanism is a simultaneous 

large-scale two-sided auction, where incumbent participation is voluntary, but incumbents who 

choose not to participate forego flexibility for five years.28 

4.1 Simultaneous two-sided auction with package 

bidding 

A single large-scale two-sided auction for all exclusively allocated spectrum would help 

bidders to combine encumbered and unencumbered spectrum into efficient packages. It would 

also allow bidders to efficiently choose among substitutable spectrum licenses. In a simultaneous 

ascending bid auction,29 as the price of a license or package rises relative to a substitute, a bidder 

can easily switch its bidding to the license or package that is a better value. And, it would help 

spectrum incumbents to relocate voluntarily to lower value spectrum when it is efficient to do so, 

by allowing them to sell and buy spectrum rights simultaneously. 

Because of the nature of the current use in certain bands and for other reasons discussed in 

Section 5, it may not be feasible to include all spectrum licenses that are substitutes and/or 

 

26 See discussion in Crampton, Kwerel and Williams (1998), pp. 660-669. The PCS band was initially allocated for 

microwave systems providing wireless communications links among fixed points, as a substitute for wireline 

service. 

27 FCC (2001a, 2002) 

28 De Vany (1998) proposed a government-run two-sided auction to reallocate encumbered spectrum. Our proposal 

goes beyond De Vany’s in that we would provide additional incentives for participation by making it a condition for 

flexibility and would facilitate greater band restructuring by offering unencumbered and encumbered spectrum in 

the same large-scale auction. 

29 An ascending bid auction is one in which prices always rise. An oral outcry, or English, auction is the most 

familiar example. In FCC simultaneous spectrum auctions multiple licenses are put up for auction at the same time, 

and bidding is permitted on all licenses until the auction closes. 
17

complements in a single simultaneous auction with package bidding. There are also technical and 

operational limitations on the number of licenses that can be auctioned simultaneously. To date, 

the largest FCC simultaneous multiple round auction contained slightly over 15,000 licenses.30

Providing for package bidding introduces additional limitations on auction scale. While the FCC 

is developing a large-scale package-bidding mechanism, the first FCC package-bidding auction 

is currently scheduled to contain only 12 licenses.31 Moreover, providing for a two-sided auction 

may introduce additional constraints on the auction scale. This would be particularly true, if 

seller participation goes beyond allowing incumbents to offer and bid on their own licenses. If 

sellers are permitted to make specific offers of the prices at which they are willing to sell and 

lower those ask prices in the auction, new software would be required and additional technical 

constraints on auction scale would need to be considered. 

One way to accommodate the technical and operational constraints on auction scale would 

be to conduct a series of auctions where the licenses that are the closest substitutes and 

complements are grouped within the same auction. This is the approach that the FCC has used to 

address technical limitations on auction scale and institutional/legal constraints on when various 

blocks of spectrum are available for auction.32 Another option would be to run several 

simultaneous two-sided package-bidding auctions in parallel. While this reduces computational 

difficulties that grow with the scale of package bidding auctions, it creates operational concerns 

for the FCC, which has limited staff with experience conducting an auction, especially one with 

a novel design. 

Where there are very large numbers of licenses that are close substitutes but without strong 

complementarities, the FCC might wish to use a simultaneous auction without package bidding. 

Here the gain from grouping the licenses in a single simultaneous auction would outweigh the 

loss from not offering package bidding. On the other hand, when there are very strong 

complementarities among certain licenses for some, but not all, bidders, the benefits of offering 

 

30 FCC auction # 40 for paging licenses was conducted 10/30/2001-12/5/200 with 15,514 licenses. See 

http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/summary.html#completed. 

31 FCC auction #31for upper 700 MHz band licenses has been postponed with no date yet scheduled.. 

http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/31

32 See Kwerel and Rosston (2000). 
18

package bidding may outweigh the loss from somewhat limiting the scope of the auction.33

Another compromise is to define larger licenses so that it is feasible to auction more of them 

simultaneously. Smaller licenses provide bidders more flexibility in grouping spectrum across 

geography and bands, if the licenses can be auctioned together. But if so many licenses are 

created that they must be auctioned in separate groups, bidders lose the benefits that simultaneity 

provides for aggregating or substituting among licenses. 

Even if it appeared technically feasible to offer all spectrum in a single two-sided 

simultaneous auction with package bidding, using a new mechanism for so much spectrum 

would expose the FCC and auction participants to an unacceptable risk of an operational or 

design flaw. Thus we propose that the FCC initially implement the mechanism on a smaller 

scale. This was the approach used for the initial FCC spectrum auctions.34

Further study of the best design of a simultaneous exchange mechanism is necessary. An 

operationally simple approach would be to use the FCC’s one-sided package bidding auction 

design and treat the licenses of incumbents like any other license in the auction. Sellers of 

licenses would look like any other bidder during an auction, except that no payment would be 

owed if they win one of their own licenses. Allowing sellers to bid on their own licenses should 

not distort the outcome of the auction any more than allowing them to set a reserve price prior to 

the auction, provided that the identities of all bidders are revealed during the course of the 

auction.35 In ascending bid auctions where the identities of bidders are kept secret, such as art 

auctions, sellers are forbidden from bidding but are able to set secret reserve prices. Presumably, 

the ban on “shills” is to assure buyers that there is at least one other party willing to pay the 

highest losing bid. This simple extension of the FCC one-sided auction design may not ensure 

 

33 If all bidders agreed on the best way to package spectrum, then the FCC should offer the spectrum in those 

packages and there would be no benefit from package bidding. There is no reason to sell left shoes and right shoes 

separately if everyone wants them in a package. Only if some people find the package much more valuable than the 

sum of parts and others do not or want to form a different mutually exclusive package, is there a benefit to package 

bidding. 

34 Nationwide Narrowband PCS was held 7/25/1994-7/29/1994 with 10 licenses; Regional Narrowband PCS was 

held 10/26/1994-11/08/1994 with 30 licenses; and A & B Block PCS was held 12/5/1994-3/13/1995 with 99 

licenses. See http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/summary.html#scheduled, and Kwerel and Rosston (2000). 

35 Sellers would have an incentive to bid up the prices of the licenses they are selling. The incentives are the same as 

for setting a reserve price prior to the auction. A seller would seek to raise the license price above its personal 

valuation, but not above the valuation of the bidder with the highest valuation. As with any reserve price, there is 

some chance that it will exceed the highest valuation and thus result in a loss of efficiency. See Riley and Samuelson 

(1981, 385). 
19

efficiency in the supply of spectrum, e.g., that licenses are sold by those parties that value them 

the least. To promote an efficient allocation with multiple sellers it may be necessary to provide 

for explicit ask prices, i.e., the minimum price a seller is willing to accept for an item, and 

determine the winners as the set of bids and asks that maximizes surplus. 36

4.2 Voluntary participation is the quid pro quo for 

flexibility 

Incumbents that participate in a band-restructuring auction would gain the right to convert 

the spectrum they encumber to flexible use. They would be able to exercise their new flexible 

use rights in different ways, depending on the nature of their current licenses. Incumbents with 

exclusive area licenses, e.g., broadcasting and ITFS licenses, would gain flexible use rights 

within their current service area and spectrum subject to boundary power limits and restrictions 

needed to protect other incumbents' current use. Incumbents that do not have defined service 

areas (e.g., fixed point-to-point licenses) would have the right to free-up additional spectrum for 

flexible use for an area licensee by voluntarily terminating operation or reducing their 

interference protection rights. All participating incumbents would be allowed to continue their 

current uses and receive the same interference protections they now have. 

While incumbent participation would be purely voluntary, making it the quid pro quo of 

flexibility would provide an incentive for all to participate.37 An incumbent that chooses not to 

offer spectrum in a band-restructuring auction could continue to use its spectrum under current 

rules, but for five years, must forego the flexibility that participants are granted. 

To prevent subversion of the five-year waiting period, the FCC may need to impose 

additional restrictions on post-auction transactions that involve the spectrum encumbered by 

non-participating incumbents. For example, it should be clear that the five-year waiting period 

applies to the encumbered spectrum even if the incumbent cancels the associated license. Other 

 

36 See section 4.4. Operationally, the current auction design could be extended to an exchange by treating ask prices 

of sellers as negative bids. Raising a negative bid would be equivalent to lowering the ask price. Sellers would 

receive payments and buyers would make payments. Maximizing revenue would be equivalent to maximizing 

surplus (bids minus asks). Further research is needed as to what other auction rules (e.g., activity and minimum 

acceptable bid) would need to be modified. 

37 Providing for such an incentive to participate may make it possible to design an exchange that is both efficient and 

voluntary (individual-rational) without violating the Myerson and Satterthwaite (1983) impossibility theorem, since 

the exchange is not also budget-balanced. 
20

safeguards might include requiring FCC pre-approval of any agreements to reduce the 

protections of spectrum subject to the waiting period or of any new facilities that would degrade 

such protections. These restrictions, as well as the waiting period itself, are needed only as a 

deterrent to speculative holdout, and would not impose significant costs if, as expected, all or 

most of the incumbents agree to participate.38 However, for incumbents who do not participate, 

rigorous enforcement of the waiting period and other restrictions would be necessary (even 

recognizing the resultant efficiency loss) to maintain the integrity of the rule as a deterrent to 

holdouts in subsequent auctions. At the end of the five-year waiting period, incumbent licenses 

that were not offered in the auction would convert automatically to flexible use, as if they had 

participated in a band-restructuring auction. 

If an incumbent chooses to sell its license it would keep the proceeds. If the license is part of 

a package that includes licenses held by more than one seller, the revenue for the package is 

divided according to a formula, e.g., the share of spectrum (MHz-pops) in each license. The 

choice of formula is discussed in Section 4.4. 

Incumbents who sell their licenses would clear their spectrum within a FCC specified time 

period, possibly one year, following the auction. Licenses that provide for exclusive use within 

an actual or implied service area would transfer to the new owner and convert to flexible use 

after the period. Any existing uses of such licenses by incumbents would terminate at that time. 

Incumbent licenses that do not have service areas or operate in shared bands would cancel 

automatically at the end of this period to clear spectrum for flexible use by area licensees. 

Incumbents will, of course, take into account their clearing costs in deciding whether to sell 

their licenses in the auction. License winners and sellers would be free to negotiate after the 

auction about changing the deadline for clearing existing uses. Allowing incumbents and bidders 

to specify different clearing periods within the auction might also be considered, if such 

additional complexity can be accommodated. This would increase the efficiency in the clearing 

schedules especially if clearing costs differ greatly across licenses and do not decrease 

 

38 We believe that making flexibility conditional on participating, plus the benefit of selling in a simultaneous 

exchange, would strongly discourage strategic holdouts. However, if this turns out not to be the case, the FCC could 

require additional measures such as giving flexible overlay licensees the right to clear holdouts with payment of 

compensation. See, Cramton, Kwerel and Williams (1998). 
21

proportionally to the clearing time. It would facilitate efficient adjustments in clearing schedules 

and allow better matching of buyers and sellers according to preferred clearing dates. 

Spectrum encumbered by multiple licenses would not be available for flexible use for the 

five-year waiting period unless all the licensees agreed to participate in a band-restructuring 

auction. For example, analog TV licenses on channels 59 and 61 in an area adjacent to a channel 

60 assignment would encumber channel 60 spectrum over some part of the channel 60 licensee's 

service area. So channel 60 would not be available for flexible use throughout that licensee's 

service area unless licensees for channels 59 and 61 also participated in the auction. This should 

not be a serious problem, since it is rational for all incumbents to participate. 

4.3 An incumbent need not sell its license 

Incumbents who offer spectrum in a band-restructuring auction would not be required to sell 

their licenses. A seller could "buy back" its license(s) at no net cost to itself and still gain the 

rights to flexible use. Even if a license is not sold, something socially useful would be gained by 

inducing participation in the auction. Participation makes the implicit opportunity cost of holding 

a license explicit.39 Once an incumbent is participating in a band-restructuring auction it is 

unlikely that top management would completely delegate the decision of whether to keep or sell 

highly valuable licenses. It is difficult to imagine, for example, that managers in charge of 

spectrum-based communications systems would be able to buy back licenses for 500 million 

dollars without approval of top management. 

It is not obvious, however, if this approach would completely overcome principal-agent 

conflicts with respect to the initial decision to participate. Since participation costs are likely to 

be very low and incumbents need not sell their licenses to get valuable flexibility, all rational 

incumbents should participate. But it is possible that spectrum managers, whose primary interest 

is preserving their positions, might make the initial decision about whether to participate. This 

difficulty could be overcome if the band-restructuring auctions were publicized sufficiently. One 

advantage of a FCC sponsored transition is that it would likely get extensive press coverage. 

 

39 Our simplified two-sided exchange mechanism would not face buyer or sellers with the precise opportunity cost 

of their transactions. Only a Vickrey (1961)-Clarke (1971)-Groves (1973) mechanism for a combinatorial exchange 

would do this. 
22

4.4 Efficient and fair division of auction proceeds 

In exchange for participating in the band-restructuring auction, incumbents would receive a 

portion of the auction revenue. The rules for dividing revenues affect both the efficiency and the 

fairness of the auction, and further study of the best payment mechanism is needed. For sales of 

individual licenses or licenses that are part of a package with a single seller, the seller would 

receive the entire amount of the winning bid. But for licenses that are part of a package with 

multiple owners, a method is needed to divide up the winning bid among the sellers. A simple 

and plausibly fair mechanism might award to each seller the fraction of the winning bid for the 

package given by the ratio of MHz-pops encumbered by its licenses to the total MHz-pops in the 

package. This mechanism may also have certain desirable efficiency properties since it 

eliminates the incentive for sellers to engage in strategic behavior designed to increase their 

share of the winning bid on a package. Some adjustment in the MHz-pop value may be 

appropriate to account for factors other than population that may affect spectrum values between 

urban and rural areas. MHz-pops encumbered by a single licensee would be attributed entirely to 

that licensee. MHz-pops encumbered by two or more licenses would be divided equally among 

those licensees. Unencumbered MHz-pops (i.e., the “white space” held by the FCC or NTIA) 

would be attributed to the United States treasury. 

Alternative payment formulas should be considered that better account for seller valuations. 

Dividing revenues in proportion to MHz-pops might not create sufficient incentive to sell a 

license in an auction when it is efficient to do so. For example, suppose an incumbent holds a 1 

MHz license, A, that it values at $1, and the FCC holds a 99 MHz license, B, that has a 

reservation price of $25. Assume that bidder 1 values the package AB at $75 and that bidder 2 

values license B alone at $50. Awarding the package AB to bidder 1 maximizes surplus ($49 

compared to $25 if B is awarded to bidder 1 and the incumbent keeps A). If package AB were 

sold for $75 and revenues divided in proportion to MHz-pops, $.75 would go to the incumbent 

on license A and the rest to the treasury. But the incumbent would not sell license A for $.75. It 

could bid $26 for A so that its bid combined with bidder 2’s bid of $50 would beat bidder 1’s 

bid. This result would be inefficient. Bidder 1 might acquire the package AB in the aftermarket, 

but would incur additional transaction costs and lose the benefits of a simultaneous auction 

design. 
23

Such an inefficient outcome is unlikely if relative license valuations are approximately 

proportional to MHz-pops and the value of licenses in flexible use is significantly greater than 

the value in the current use. The simple revenue division formula may be adequate for the initial 

applications of the proposed band-restructuring auction because the gap between value in current 

use and flexible use is likely to be quite large. 

While more complex, an auction design that allows sellers to explicitly set ask prices might 

more accurately assign package value to individual components. Parkes, Kalagnanam, and Eso 

(2001) have proposed a promising payment scheme in the context of a sealed bid combinatorial 

exchange. They propose an approximation of the (efficient) Vickrey payments that ensures 

budget balance for the exchange (total payments to sellers do not exceed total receipts from 

buyers). It may be possible to extend such a “second-best” payment rule to a simultaneous 

ascending bid combinatorial exchange. 

4.5 FCC conducted band restructuring auctions 

We believe the FCC should conduct the proposed band-restructuring auctions. The FCC is 

in the best position to solve the coordination problem of putting highly interdependent spectrum 

up for auction at the same time. The FCC already holds unencumbered spectrum that is 

complementary with encumbered spectrum. The FCC already has established credibility in 

auctioning spectrum licenses. Because the FCC has the most tools to address the incentive 

problems, it is best able to help ensure that there will be a high level of participation. 

The FCC is also in the best position to solve incentive problems associated with ensuring 

participation and mitigating holdout problems. FCC regulatory authority over spectrum gives it 

more “carrots” and “sticks” than private parties. Because the FCC is best able to solve the 

coordination problem of ensuring a large-scale auction, it has an advantage in solving the 

incentive problems. As discussed above, as the expected scale of the auction increases, both 

buyers and sellers have a greater incentive to participate, and sellers have less incentive to 

strategically holdout. 

Finally the FCC has certain real cost advantages in running a band-restructuring auction. 

Permitting incumbents to sell their licenses in a FCC auction along with FCC held spectrum 

would add relatively little cost. 
24

Nevertheless, if the FCC concluded that conducting two-sided band-restructuring auctions is 

not legally or politically feasible, then other options should be considered that permit 

simultaneous aggregation of the entire spectrum in a band. One option would be to rely on a 

privately run simultaneous auction for the new overlay licenses as well as the incumbents' rights. 

This would effectively privatize the FCC's auction process, and measures would be required to 

ensure that the design and conduct of the private auction was fair and efficient and that the 

Treasury receives its share of the proceeds. It is not obvious whether a private party could 

successfully run such a large-scale band-restructuring auction. What happens if multiple firms 

wish to run an auction for the same spectrum? Could the FCC delegate the sale of FCC held 

spectrum to the party holding such an auction? How would the FCC choose among multiple 

parties wishing to sell the same FCC held spectrum, acting as its agent? Should the FCC hold an 

auction for that right? How long would it take for the private sector to resolve who would run 

such an auction? If highly interdependent spectrum is not put up for auction simultaneously there 

could be a large efficiency losses, especially during the initial transition (when restrictions on 

flexibility are removed) because of the magnitude of the current misallocation. Transaction costs 

could be high and efficiency-enhancing trades not occur without a well-organized centralized 

exchange. Such institutions may develop over time, as did the New York Stock Exchange and 

the Chicago Commodity Exchange. Although that may happen with spectrum as well, the cost of 

a long transition could be great. 

5 What Spectrum Should be Restructured? 

As we have indicated, to maximize allocation efficiency across substitutable and 

complementary spectrum, each auction should cover as wide a frequency range as possible and 

include as much spectrum within that range as possible. However, there are difficult design and 

implementation issues with very large auctions. Complexity of auction software is a problem for 

very large auctions with package bidding. In addition to auction complexity constraints, it is not 

clear how incumbents would make voluntary participation decisions in many bands. For 

example, how would incumbents with non-exclusive spectrum assignments, as in the traditional 

private land mobile bands, collectively decide whether to clear a band? Even where incumbents 

have exclusive spectrum assignments, questions arise as to the appropriate entity to make 

decisions on selling or buying spectrum. Should we rely on DOD and public safety agencies, for 
25

example, to offer spectrum presently limited to those uses? Should individual broadcasters be 

able to convert spectrum to non-broadcast use, or should consumers of broadcast services or the 

FCC have a say? Who decides on the sale of navigation spectrum used in the U.S. by foreign 

and domestic vessels? 

We believe these issues are not insurmountable, allowing most spectrum to be restructured 

over time with auctions. But we also believe the technique can and should be implemented 

initially on a more limited scale both to test the concept and to provide much needed relief to 

immediate spectrum shortages. Our specific proposal, discussed below, would restructure 438 

MHz of very desirable spectrum for market allocation within a relatively short 2 to 5 year time 

frame. 

5.1 300 MHz to 3000 MHz 

Spectrum in the 300 MHz to 3000 MHz range is sometimes referred to as "Beachfront 

Property" since it is the frequency range most in demand for high valued, high growth uses such 

as 3rd generation cellular mobile services (3G). Because of the high value of spectrum in this 

range, the economic gains from an efficient allocation would be particularly great. We believe 

that this range is the logical place to initiate band-restructuring auctions. We note, however, that 

efficient restructuring of spectrum in the 300 MHz to 3000 MHz range would benefit greatly 

from the inclusion in the same auction of spectrum above 3000 MHz that could be 

simultaneously acquired as replacement spectrum by incumbents wishing to sell more valuable 

spectrum in the lower range. Therefore, as our analysis continues, we hope to be able to amend 

our initial implementation proposal to include complementary bands in the higher frequency 

range, either in the same auction or in a separate, simultaneous auction. 

Spectrum in the 300 MHz to 3000 MHz range can be considered approximately fungible for 

most uses, with the lower frequencies benefiting from somewhat lower cost technology and 

reduced propagation loss. The substitutability of frequencies across the range suggests 

restructuring the entire band in a single, simultaneous auction. However, we do not believe such 

a large auction event is either feasible or advisable as an initial implementation of the concept. 

We must therefore narrow the options. In the remainder of this section, we develop a rationale 

for identifying bands within the 300 MHz to 3000 MHz range that present what we believe to be 
26

manageable implementation issues and yet provide substantial bandwidth. We are looking for 

bands that can be restructured within two to five years. This is soon enough to address current 

spectrum shortages while providing adequate planning time to complete the necessary 

rulemaking and auction development. 

5.2 Eliminating difficult bands from the initial 

implementation 

Different categories of bands within the 300 MHz to 3000 MHz range pose very different 

implementation problems of the kinds mentioned earlier in this section. Excluding categories of 

bands that present the most difficult problems would thus seem a rational method for narrowing 

the options for initial implementation. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure A 

which we will explain more fully below. 

Figure A is a band-by-band graphical representation of the US Allocation Table from 322 

MHz to 3100 MHz, a total of 2778 MHz. There are 124 separate bands in Figure A, ranging in 

size from 255 MHz to 0.1 MHz. The vertical frequency bar in the table is drawn on a linear 

scale (approximately), which is why the labeling of many of the smaller bands is not clearly 

legible.40 The frequency limits of each band are displayed in Column A and the bandwidth is 

identified in Column B. Color shading indicates whether a band is allocated to government only 

(red), non-government only (blue) or both government and non-government (green). Unlicensed 

bands (yellow) and bands recently transferred from government to non-government (violet) are 

identified separately.41 A general description of the uses of the various bands is also presented in 

the far right column, although readers should refer to the FCC's online allocation table for the 

official designations.42 

The analytical approach we use narrows options through a process of elimination by 

progressively applying filters to exclude bands that we believe would not be good candidates for 

initial restructuring auctions (Columns C through F) and bands that are presently structured by 

market forces, i.e., are flexibly allocated and exhaustively assigned (Column G). From the bands 

 

40 An expanded version of the chart used to create Figure A is posted on the OPP website at 

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/working_papers/oppwp38chart.pdf. 

41 For a listing of bands recently transferred from government to non-government use, see NTIA (2001), para. 10. 

42 http://www.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf. 
FIGURE A 

ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL SPECTRUM FOR INITIAL BAND-RESTRUCTURING AUCTIONS

(322 MHz to 3100 MHz)

BAND

(MHz)

CATEGORIES OF BANDS EXCLUDED

(Bands excluded by each category show up as increased 

white space in the spectrum chart under that heading 

relative to the column to its immediate left)

GENERAL SERVICE DESCRIPTION

(NOTE: Service names used on this page are the authors' 

own derivations and not necessarily official FCC terminology.)

A BCDEFGH

328 6-335 4 322-328 6 6 6 6 8

335.4-399.9 64.5

400 05 400 15 399 9 400 05 400 15-401 406 406 1 401-402 402-403 403-406 0 15 0 85 0 1 0 1113 406 1-410 3 9 410-420 10 420-450 30

460-462 5375 450-454 454-455 455-456 456-460 2 53 4114 2 53 4114 2 53 4114 2 53 4114 462 5375 462 7375 462 7375-467 5375 467 5375 467 7375 467 7375-470 0 19 4 79 0 19 2 26 0 1925 4 7925 0 1925 2 2625 0 1925 4 7925 0 1925 2 2625 0 1925 4 7925 0 1925 2 2625 470-512 42 42

512-608 96 96

608-614 6

614-698 84 84

698-746 48 48 48 48 48 48 48

746 747 1 1 1 1 747-762 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 762-764 2 2 2 2 764-776 12 12 12 12 776-777 1 1 1 1 777-792 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 792-794 2 2 2 2 794-806 12 12 12 12 806-809 75 809 75-816 3 75 6 25 3 75 6 25 3 75 6 25 3 75 6 25 3 75 3 75 816-821 821-824 53 53 53 53 5 5 824-849 25 25 25 25 25 851-854 75 849-851 3 75 2 3 75 2 3 75 2 3 75 2 3 75 2 3 75 2 854 75-861 861-866 866-869 6 25 53 6 25 53 6 25 53 6 25 53 5 5 869-894 25 25 25 25 25 894-896 896-901 25 25 25 25 2 2 901-902 1 1 1 1 1 1 902-928 26 26 26 928-929 929-930 930-931 931-932 932-935 11113 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 935 940-941 941-944 -940 513 51 51 51 1 1 944-960 16 16 16 16 16 16

1215-1240 25

1240-1300 60

1300-1350 50

1350-1390 40

1390-1395 1395-1400 55 1400-1427 27 1427-1429 1429-1432 1432-1435 233 3 3 3

1435-1525 90

1545-1549 5

1525-1530 1530-1535 1535 1544-1545 -1544 4 55591 1549 5 1558 5-1559 -1558 5 0 59

1559-1610 51

1610 6-1613 8 1610 1610 6 0 6 3 2 1613.8-1626.5 12.7 1626.5-1645.5 19 1645 5-1646 5 1646 5-1651 4 51 1651-1660 9 1660 5 1668 4-1670 1670-1675 -1668 4 7 9 1 65 1675-1700 25 1700-1710 10

1710-1755 45

1755-1850 95

1850-1910 60 60 60 60 60

1910-1930 20 20 20

1930-1990 60 60 60 60 60

1990-2025 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

2025-2110 85

2110-2150 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

2150-2160 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2160-2165 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2165-2200 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

2200-2290 90

2290-2300 10 2300-2305 2305-2310 55 5 5 5 5 2310-2320 10 10 10 10 10 2320-2345 25 25 25 25 25 25 2345-2360 15 15 15 15 15 2360-2385 25 2385-2390 5 2390 2400-2402 -2400 102 102 102 2402-2417 15 15 15 2417-2450 33 33 33

2450-2483.5 33.5 33.5 33.5

2483.5-2500 16.5 16.5 16.5

2500-2655 155 155 155 155 155 155 155

2655-2690 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

2690-2700 10

2700-2900 200

2900-3100 200

COLUMN TOTALS 2778 1120.97 898.97 742.97 661.5 461.5 393 G NG G/NG T UL TOTAL

% OF TOTAL 100.0% 40.4% 32.4% 26.7% 23.8% 16.6% 14.1%

621.6 965 965.4 70 156 2778

22.4% 34.7% 34.8% 2.5% 5.6% 100.0%

Max BW 255

Min BW 0.1ALL BANDS (BANDWIDTH IN MHz)

960-1215

EXCLUDE G, G/NG 

AND T BANDS

EXCLUDE PRIVATE 

LAND MOBILE AND 

GUARD BANDS

EXCLUDE CORE TV 

BANDS

EXCLUDE 

UNLICENSED BANDS

BANDS PROPOSED FOR INITIAL 

RESTRUCTURING AUCTIONS

(1710-1755 MHz added in text)

EXCLUDE 

PRESENTLY 

FLEXIBLE BANDS

255

CORE UHF TV BAND CHANNELS 14-51 Excluding Ch. 37. (470-698 MHz) 

REALLOCATED TV CHANNELS 52-59 - "Lower 700 MHz" (698-746 MHz), Possible 3G

REALLOCATED TV CHANNELS 60-69 - "Upper 700 MHz" (746-806 MHz), Possible 3G

FIXED, MOBILE, RADAR, NAVIGATION (GPS 1381.05 MHz)

FIXED, MOBILE, SATELLITE, NAVIGATION, WEATHER AIDS (322-450 MHz)

PRIVATE LAND MOBILE (450-470 MHz)

TRANSFER BANDS

TRANSFER BAND

TRANSFER BAND (Possible 3G) 

GOVERNMENT FIXED AND MOBILE (Possible 3G)

PCS (Possible 3G)

PCS (Possible 3G)

2 GHz MSS UPLINK (Possible 3G)

2 GHz MSS DOWNLINK (Possible 3G)

FIXED AND MOBILE (Possible 3G)

SATELLITE, WEATHER AIDS, RADIOASTRONOMY, NAVIGATION

SPACE, FIXED, MOBILE (BROADCAST AUXILIARY)

MDS - ITFS (Possible 3G)

UNLICENSED PCS (Possible 3G)

FIXED, MOBILE, SATELLITE 

WCS

WCS

SDARS

TRANSFER BAND

TRANSFER BAND

UNLICENSED BAND 

TRANSFER BAND

WEATHER AIDS

NAVIGATION

(Possible 3G)

GOVERNMENT 

NON-GOVERNMENT 

TRANSFER 

GOVERNMENT AND 

NON-GOVERNMENT

UNLICENSED

FIXED, MOBILE

NAVIGATION

NAVIGATION

RADAR

UNLICENSED BAND

CELLULAR, Possible 3G

CELLULAR, Possible 3G

RADIOASTRONOMY

L-BAND MSS DOWN LINK (Possible 3G)

AERONAUTICAL TELEMETRY

L-BAND MSS UP LINK (Possible 3G)

WEATHER SATELLITES

GPS (1227.6 MHz)

GPS (1575.42 MHz)

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1200

1300

1400

300

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

2600

2700

2800

2900

3000

3100

1100

FIGURE B

GOVERNMENT / NON-GOVERNMENT DIVISION OF 

SPECTRUM IN THE 322-3100 MHz RANGE

 (Secondary Allocations and Footnote Provisions 

Not Counted) 

34.8%

2.5%

5.6%

22.4%

34.7% G

NG

G/NG

T

UL

Including the1710-1755 MHz band, the total spectrum proposed is 438 MHz.

(See text for explanation)

FIGURE B

 27
28

remaining in Column G, we identify in Column H a collection of relatively large bands totaling 

393 MHz that appear to be good candidates for the initial restructuring auction. These are the 

lower and upper 700 MHz bands 698-746 MHz, 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz (78 MHz) 

recently reallocated from television broadcasting ; the 2 GHz MSS bands 1990-2025 MHz and 

2165-2200 MHz (70 MHz); the 2110-2165 MHz non-government general fixed and mobile band 

(55 MHz); and the 2500-2690 MHz ITFS/MDS band (190 MHz). To these bands we suggest 

adding the 1710 MHz to 1755 MHz government transfer band (45 MHz) bringing the total 

spectrum to be restructured in our proposal to 438 MHz. If a more limited initial roll-out is 

preferred, we suggest the 2 GHz MSS bands and the ITFS/MMDS band as potential candidates. 

We now explain our reasoning behind these choices more fully. 

Federal government spectrum 

The first filter in Table A (Column C) eliminates all bands that are allocated either for 

exclusive federal government use or for shared government/non-government use, even if they 

have been identified as bands to be transferred to non-government use (transfer bands) or 

identified for possible 3G use. Restructuring spectrum not under exclusive FCC jurisdiction will 

be particularly difficult, requiring concurrence by the NTIA and potentially other government 

agencies now operating in those bands. 

Another problem is participation. Government incumbents may not have strong incentives 

to participate in the auction, and may require more complex band clearing agreements. To 

maintain essential missions, government agencies may require longer periods to clear spectrum 

or contingency clauses that permit spectrum to be reclaimed in emergencies. While we believe 

these more complex arrangements can be worked out, we do not believe it is possible to do so 

within our two to five year time frame. Therefore we have eliminated government and shared 

bands from consideration for initial band-restructuring auctions.43 Deleting government and 

shared bands reduces the spectrum total by approximately 60 %, as shown in the column totals at 

 

43 Because of participation problems with government incumbents, we have also excluded the so-called "Transfer 

Bands," i.e., bands that have been identified for reallocation to non-government uses but which will continue to be 

encumbered by government systems for several years. However, in our final proposal we recommend including the 

largest of these bands, the 1710-1755 MHz band, in the initial proposal because of it size and potential 

complementarity for pairing with other spectrum in our proposal. It also appears that the band clearing rules for that 

band significantly reduce the need for incumbent participation in the auction. See, NTIA (2001). 
29

the bottom of the chart. For greater clarity on this point, we have included a special insert 

(Figure B) showing the government/non-government division of spectrum in the range. 

In the longer run, excluding the large amount of spectrum presently reserved for government 

use would significantly reduce the efficiency gains from a transition to a spectrum market. In 

principal, we think that government users should acquire spectrum at market prices the same way 

they acquire other inputs such as oil, real estate and computer equipment. Paying market prices 

for these other inputs does not diminish the quality of government services. Moreover, in the 

transition to a market system, government spectrum users are likely to be net sellers of spectrum, 

creating an initial cash surplus above the cost of replacing their current wireless communications 

services. This surplus could be used to increase public services. It would be beneficial if public 

sector spectrum could be offered simultaneously with complementary and substitutable spectrum 

now allocated to commercial use because this would facilitate value-enhancing trades between 

the two sectors. 

If included, government spectrum would be treated much like private sector spectrum is 

treated: the unassigned portions would be offered in the form of overlay licenses and incumbents 

would be invited to offer their spectrum and set reserve prices by bidding in the auction. The 

incentives for participation by public sector incumbents might be weak, however, even with the 

potential for significant cash surplus. For this reason, the decisions about whether to sell or 

retain existing public sector spectrum should be made at an organizational level high enough to 

make the appropriate tradeoffs between the benefit of the spectrum to the organization and the 

benefit of other goods and services that could be obtained with the cash received by selling the 

spectrum. For spectrum used by the federal government, perhaps only Congress could make this 

decision. As a practical matter, Congress would need to delegate the authority to decide whether 

to keep or sell federal government spectrum in the band-restructuring auctions, but would need 

to take care that it does not create a principal-agent problem by delegating down to too low a 

level. 44

 

44 The same logic holds for non-federal public safety spectrum. In that case, the appropriate authority for deciding 

participation might be the state governments, perhaps the governors, who have functional responsibilities that cut 

across a broad range of public services, including safety services. We note that the FCC has designated 2.4 

megahertz of the Public Safety 700 MHz band as state channels. See, FCC (2001b). 
30

Core TV spectrum 

In Column D we eliminate the bands generally known as "core" TV spectrum, i.e., 470 MHz 

to 698 MHz. Some of this spectrum might eventually be made available for market allocation 

and subject to a restructuring auction. However, considerable TV spectrum has recently been 

reallocated for other uses in the lower and upper 700 MHz bands (previously TV channels 52 to 

69).45 Considering the political sensitivities associated with broadcast spectrum and maintenance 

of free over-the-air television, we do not foresee further reduction of the core TV band within 

our time frame. Thus, we are not proposing to include any of the core TV spectrum in initial 

band-restructuring auctions. Eliminating this spectrum removes another 8% of the spectrum 

from consideration. 

We would note, however, that there may be a more efficient way to maintain a minimum 

level of free television service while allowing additional spectrum to be restructured for market 

allocation. One approach might be for the FCC to auction flexible overlay licenses covering the 

entire core TV spectrum and allow incumbent broadcasters to offer their spectrum for sale in the 

same auction with the caveat that they each continue to offer at least one free over-the-air 

standard-definition program stream in digital format. Since as many as six standard definition 

program streams can be provided on a single digital channel, this could make most of the current 

TV spectrum available for flexible use. Even if each program stream were provided in high 

definition, the greater interference immunity of the DTV format coupled with possible colocation of transmitters could greatly reduce the amount of spectrum required. 

Unlicensed bands 

The third filter (Column E) removes unlicensed bands. Restructuring unlicensed bands 

solely through the use of an auction does not appear feasible. Since users of unlicensed bands 

have no exclusive rights and there is generally no record of the current incumbents (users) to 

whom such rights might be assigned, participation in an auction would not seem feasible. Any 

restructuring of unlicensed bands will probably require an administrative solution. Moreover, as 

discussed in section 2.5, setting aside some spectrum for low power, unlicensed use is probably 

efficient. We therefore propose to exclude current unlicensed bands, accounting for 6% of the 

total spectrum in the range. We also propose no change in the current provisions for unlicensed 

 

45 FCC (2001a., 2002) 
31

use in licensed bands. The FCC would continue to manage those provisions and any potential 

interference from such devices would have to be taken into account by those who bid for 

spectrum licenses in adjacent bands. 

While we are not proposing to include present unlicensed bands in initial restructuring 

auctions, such auctions might be a source of additional spectrum for similar kinds of devices as 

an alternative to administrative allocations. Future expansion of dedicated spectrum for 

unlicensed use could be obtained through negotiation between the manufactures of such devices 

and spectrum licensees. One possible arrangement would be for a licensee or group of licensees 

covering a particular band throughout the U.S. to charge manufacturers a fee for the right to 

produce and market devices to operate in that band. Such contracts could provide different 

grades of access for different fees, thus providing for a wider range of uses than are possible 

under the current rules. Competition between licensees would ensure that fees reflect the 

opportunity cost of the spectrum. Alternatively, manufacturers of low power devices might form 

a bidding consortium to acquire additional spectrum in our auction. If there is a continued desire 

as a matter of public policy to provide spectrum for such devices on a "free" basis, the FCC itself 

might purchase the spectrum in the auction, essentially reducing overall proceeds to the 

Treasury.46 This would have the advantage of making the opportunity cost of such allocations 

more explicit. 

Non-exclusively licensed bands and bands with many small licenses 

The fourth group of bands eliminated by our filtering process (Column F) are bands in 

which incumbents do not have exclusive rights and the bands recently licensed as so-called 

"Guard Band Managers." Elimination of these bands removes another 3% of the spectrum. 

The Guard Band Manager bands are excluded because of constraints on flexibility imposed 

to protect the adjoining public safety bands.47 Since these bands were exhaustively and 

exclusively licensed by auction, they will have already been efficiently structured by market 

forces within the constraints imposed on flexibility. We assume these constraints will remain in 

 

46 Allowing this may require specific legislation. 

47 FCC (2000) 
32

place to protect the public safety uses in adjacent bands, and thus see little to be gained by a 

restructuring auction. 

The non-exclusively licensed bands (primarily those now designated for private land mobile 

use, including certain public safety bands) present special problems for participation in a 

restructuring auction. A voluntary participation rule, such as we propose, would require that all 

users who share a particular range of spectrum participate and agree to sell before that spectrum 

can be cleared. Participation by individual incumbents would be discouraged by the low 

likelihood that all incumbents would ultimately agree. Also, the amount of spectrum 

encumbered by any single licensee in a shared band may be too small to justify the cost of 

individual participation. This latter problem could also occur in exclusively licensed bands if the 

spectrum assigned to individual licensees is very small. 

One possible solution in both cases may be to select a single entity to serve as an auction 

agent to participate on behalf of all incumbents in the band. Such an agent might be appointed by 

the FCC, as it has done with certain coordinators, or elected by a majority vote of incumbents. 

As with individual licensees, an agent could make both sell and buy decisions for the licensees it 

represents. It may be that the spectrum in a shared band has unique value because of its 

proximity to other bands. If so, some of the surplus from the sale of a shared band might be used 

to buy replacement spectrum for the incumbents in a lower cost frequency range. We believe the 

time required to solve these problems puts the time frame for restructuring of non-exclusive 

bands too far in the future for them to be considered for initial implementation of our proposal. 

Currently flexible spectrum 

Within remaining spectrum, bands that are presently allocated for flexible use (e.g., cellular 

and PCS bands) are eliminated in column G, leaving 461.5 MHz. We see no need to restructure 

bands that are already allocated by market forces. Incumbents in these bands might be invited to 

offer their spectrum in the initial restructuring auctions of nearby bands, but would not, of 

course, be subject to the 5 year waiting rule since they already have flexibility. These bands 

account for 7% of the spectrum in the range. 
33

Other bands excluded from initial implementation 

Having eliminated approximately 83% of the spectrum in the range, we are left with the 

bands listed in Column G, a total of 461.5 MHz. Many of these remaining bands, i.e., those in 

the 806 MHz to 960 MHz range, are too small and fragmented to be of much interest and would 

not pass our "substantial benefit" test. Also, while including the SDARS band 2320 MHz to 2345 

MHz makes sense as a matter of principle, the apparent success of that service makes it less 

likely to change use in a restructuring auction. Therefore, we are not counting it in our total, 

although we do not dismiss it entirely as a possibility. 

5.3 Our proposal - 438 MHz of additional spectrum for 

market allocation 

If the SDARS and small bands are eliminated, what remains is a group of relatively large 

bands totaling 393 MHz that we believe are prime candidates for an initial band-restructuring 

auction, or series of auctions, such as we propose. These bands are shown in Column H. 

Specifically, they are: the lower and upper 700 MHz bands recently reallocated to flexible use 

from television broadcasting (698-746 MHz, 747-762 MHz and 777- 792 MHz, totaling 78 

MHz); the 2 GHz MSS bands (1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz, totaling 70 MHz); the 

ITFS/MMDS band (2500-2690 MHz, totaling 190 MHz); and the general and fixed mobile band 

(2110-2165 MHz, totaling 55 MHz). In addition to the bands selected in Column H, we propose 

to add the 1710 MHz to 1755 MHz government transfer band (45 MHz), bringing the total in our 

proposed initial restructuring auction to 438 MHz. This spectrum is technically suitable for a 

variety of potentially high-demand uses, and quickly restructuring it into an efficient market 

allocation could greatly increase its value to the economy. We discuss each band in turn. 

The 700 MHz bands. 

The upper and lower 700 MHz bands (698-746 MHz, 747-762 MHz and 777- 792 MHz, 

totaling 78 MHz) is spectrum recently reallocated to flexible commercial use from television 

broadcasting service. The bands were taken from what was formerly TV channels 51 to 69.48 All 

of this spectrum is heavily encumbered and would therefore be a good candidate for an initial 

 

48 Another 6 MHz was reallocated as commercial Guard Bands to protect public safety users and, for reasons we 

have discussed earlier in this section, is excluded from our consideration for the proposed band-restructuring 

auctions. See, http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/summary.html.
34

restructuring auction. Eighteen MHz in the lower band has already been auctioned, while the 

remaining 60 MHz has not. All of this spectrum is heavily encumbered and could be considered 

as close substitutes if offered in simultaneous auction event. Thus, we propose that all 78 MHz 

be included in the initial band-restructuring auction. This would include the 60 MHz of 

unauctioned spectrum, 30 MHz in the upper 700 MHz band and 30 MHz in the lower band, as 

well as the 18 MHz in the lower band that has already been auctioned. In the latter case, the 

incumbent broadcasters as well as the new flexible licensees in the band would be invited to 

participate. 

To provide incentives for the UHF TV incumbents in the unauctioned bands to participate in 

the two-sided auction, we would make flexibility conditional on participation. Under this 

proposal spectrum in these bands encumbered by a broadcaster who does not participate would 

remain restricted to broadcasting service until the end of the digital transition as specified by 

statute.49 This restriction would apply whether or not the non-participating incumbent continues 

to broadcast or cancels its license. This incentive to participate would not apply to incumbents 

(broadcasters and flexible licensees) in the bands that have already been auctioned, who would 

remain subject to the rules currently in place for those bands.50 We believe licensees in these 

bands would also have an incentive to participate in the auction. In this way all of the 

commercial spectrum in these bands could potentially be restructured in a simultaneous auction 

event. 

The ITFS/MMDS bands. 

In the ITFS/MMDS band, the FCC has added mobile as a permissible use that can be 

employed by incumbent licensees, but has not yet proposed the necessary interference and 

coordination rules. To implement our restructuring auction proposal in the ITFS/MMDS band, 

we recommend the following steps: (1) define explicit interference protection rights for 

incumbents, both ITFS and MMDS licensees; (2) reallocate the entire band (2500 MHz to 2690 

MHz) to flexible use (thus eliminating any remaining provisions for mandatory instructional use 

in the ITFS portion); (3) define geographic overlay licenses to exhaustively license the ITFS 

spectrum; (4) proceed with the design and implementation of our proposed restructuring auction 

 

49 BBA (1997). §309(j)(14)(A)-(C) 

50 Auction 44. See, http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/44/factsheet.html . 
35

for this band with special provisions as necessary to take into account existing leasing 

arrangements between ITFS and MMDS licensees; and (5) identify one or more bands in a 

higher frequency range that could be auctioned simultaneously as potential replacement 

spectrum for incumbents who may wish to relocate. This latter step, while not required, would 

help to avoid uncertainty about the cost and availability of replacement spectrum for incumbents 

who wish to continue operation in another band. 

The 2 GHz MSS bands 

A slightly different approach would be appropriate for the 2 GHz MSS band because the 8 

MSS licensees have not been assigned specific spectrum blocks and because of possible 

concerns about creating excessive windfalls for licensees in a service exempt from auctions. 

Under current rules, each 2 GHz MSS licensee has the right to select a 7 MHz block on a firstcome-first served basis once it deploys an MSS system. Since the MSS incumbents do not have 

specific blocks that could be put into a two-sided auction, an alternative approach would be to 

offer them a transferable voucher in exchange for returning their MSS licenses. Any portion of 

the voucher could be used toward payment of any winning bid in any Commission auction. The 

amount of MSS spectrum made available by returning MSS licenses would be reallocated and 

auctioned for flexible use including MSS. As in our general proposal, the MSS licensees would 

have the option to provide MSS under the current rules and would eventually be assigned 

specific spectrum blocks under current rules. But instead of flexibility as the quid pro quo for 

participating in two-sided band-restructuring auction, the quid pro quo would be a transferable 

voucher in exchange for giving up their MSS license.51

The 1710-1755 MHz transfer band and 2110 MHz to 2165 MHz bands 

We include the 1710 MHz to 1755 MHz transfer band in our initial restructuring proposal, 

despite having excluded it earlier when discussing participation problems with government 

incumbents. This spectrum appears highly complementary for pairing reasons with certain bands 

 

51 This approach would be equivalent to our general proposal if the transferable vouchers were equal to 100% of the 

average sales price of the returned licenses. Setting the vouchers at a smaller percentage would limit windfalls 

received by incumbents. This may be appropriate in this case, since it would discourage regulatory arbitrage (parties 

petitioning the FCC to allocate spectrum for global/international satellite systems, which are exempt from auction, 

and requesting flexible use after receiving such spectrum through an administrative assignment). A smaller 

percentage would also raise revenue for the Treasury, to the extent it is sufficient to induce the return of licenses. 
36

in Column H, particularly those in the 2110 MHz to 2165 MHz range and, if so paired, would be 

a close substitute for other bands in Column H for bidders seeking spectrum for 3G use in 

particular, and perhaps for other uses.52 Non-participation by government incumbents in the 

auction would not be a problem if the band clearing rules allow the spectrum in commercially 

important areas to be cleared quickly and at a cost that is predictable to bidders prior to the 

auction.53 We note that both the 1710 MHz to 1755 MHz band and the 2110 MHz to 2150 MHz 

bands are under a statutory mandate to be auctioned prior to September 30, 2002. 54 However, 

neither band is presently scheduled for auction. We propose that their auction be postponed long 

enough (we estimate two years) so that they can be included in our proposed initial restructuring 

auction. Including these bands would increase the total available for the initial band-restructuring 

auction under our proposal to 438 MHz. 

An alternative, smaller auction 

If a smaller auction is preferred as an initial implementation, then we propose the 

ITFS/MMDS and 2 GHz MSS bands as our first choice. Both bands have been identified for 

potential 3G use. Moreover, some have questioned the commercial viability of certain current 

uses in the bands, so a large increase in private value from band restructuring is possible. This 

potential should create strong incentives for incumbents to participate. Restructuring these bands 

using the mechanism we propose would quickly open 260 MHz of very desirable spectrum for 

market allocation. We believe this would go a long way toward relieving current spectrum 

shortages for high growth services and potentially add billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. 

The resulting transfer of spectrum to higher valued uses would benefit incumbents, consumers, 

and the U.S. Treasury. 

6 Additional Issues 

6.1 Legal authority 

The FCC's legal authority to include incumbents' licenses in its auctions would have to be 

determined, as a threshold issue. The plain language in the statute limits the use of auctions to 

 

52 FCC (2001c). 

53 See, NTIA (2001) at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/occ/manreimb/index.html. 

54 BBA-97, Section 3007. 
37

"initial licenses".55 This ensures that the FCC cannot auction licenses at renewal. The statute 

was not written with two-sided auctions in mind, and new legislative authority clearly and 

specifically authorizing such auctions would be desirable. However, it may be possible to 

proceed without new legislation if doing so would not violate the intent of current law, 

particularly the "initial license" limitation. 

Auctions were conceived as an efficient alternative to comparative hearings and lotteries as 

a means of awarding licenses subject to competing applications. But historically, most FCC 

licenses have carried strong renewal expectancy as long as licensees substantially comply with 

rules and the terms of their licenses. Thus, renewals would not normally give rise to the filing of 

mutually exclusive applications. Taking back and reauctioning licenses at renewal would 

eliminate this renewal expectancy and diminish complementary investment particularly toward 

the end of the license term. Limiting auctions to initial licenses avoids this inefficiency. 

Concerns about auctioning renewals do not arise in the context of our proposal, which would 

not involve any modification to licensees' renewal expectancies or to the renewal process. 

Moreover we have designed our proposal to be fair to incumbents as well as the general public. 

Incumbents would gain from the increased value of their spectrum as a result of flexibility, and 

the public would gain from a rapid and efficient restructuring of the spectrum. To ensure these 

benefits, flexibility would depend only on participation in the auction. Since licensees would 

also be free to buy back their licenses and keep the proceeds, they could gain the value of 

flexibility with no direct cost to themselves, other than the cost of participating in the auction. 

Thus, since our proposal does not envision using auctions for renewals and would be fair to both 

incumbents and society as a whole, it may be possible to implement the proposal under the 

Commission's general public interest authority. 

If clarifying legislation is not forthcoming regarding the limitation of auction authority to 

“initial licenses”, and the FCC does not wish to take the legal risk associated with conducting 

two-sided auctions, it may consider two band restructuring options in addition to purely private 

auctions. One option would involve incumbents offering clearing agreements instead of licenses. 

To avoid the "initial license" limitation, the FCC may be able to proceed by specifying that 

 

55 Communications Act of 1934, Section 309(j)(1). 
38

incumbents are not offering their licenses, per se, in its auction but rather voluntary agreements 

to clear the band at some date certain, such as 1 year after the auction concludes. There would 

still be an issue as to whether the FCC can expand its use of auctions to include such agreements 

even though it may not be explicitly prohibited. 

A second option would be to link the FCC auction of overlay licenses with a simultaneous, 

privately run auction of incumbents’ licenses or clearing agreements. In a linked auction, 

however, it may be impossible or at least cumbersome to allow package bids that include both 

the FCC’s and incumbents’ licenses. If package bidding for encumbered and unencumbered 

spectrum were not possible, some aggregation efficiency would be lost. 

Aside from the issue of whether the FCC has the authority to conduct any two-sided 

auctions, there is a question of statutory authority to auction spectrum allocated for certain 

specific purposes. The FCC does not have the authority to auction initial licenses used for public 

safety radio services, noncommercial educational broadcast stations, and international satellite 

services.56 It is possible that the FCC could auction spectrum now set aside for these purposes if 

it reallocated the spectrum for flexible use. Moreover, there would appear to be no legal bar to 

incumbents selling such licenses in a secondary market. 

As far as spectrum allocated for federal users, NTIA does not have explicit legal authority to 

use auctions to assign such spectrum, and federal government users do not have authority to sell 

their spectrum. Legislation would likely be required to allow government incumbents to offer 

spectrum in a band-restructuring auction conducted by the FCC. 

6.2 Incentives to adopt our proposal – winners and 

losers 

While we believe that adopting our proposal will result in a large net gain to the economy, 

that does not ensure the necessary political support at the FCC, NTIA and Congress to 

implement it. That support will depend on the distribution of gains and losses as well as the size 

of the net gain. Our analysis suggests that the proposal will benefit consumers, while firms and 

the Treasury may gain or lose. 

 

56 Communications Act of 1934, Section 309(j)(2). Communications Satellite Act of 1962, Section 647. (Provision 

added by the ORBIT Act (2000). 
39

Consumers gain from lower prices and greater variety of wireless services. New providers of 

commercial wireless services generally benefit from the increased supply and lower prices of 

flexible spectrum. An important entry barrier will be substantially lowered. 

Incumbents with spectrum restricted to specific uses or users gain from the increased value 

of their currently licensed spectrum due to flexibility. However, some may be harmed by the loss 

of future access to free or below-market priced spectrum. Under the broadest implementation of 

our proposal, federal government, public safety, non-commercial and shared-use licensees would 

no longer have access to free spectrum. Commercial licensees that are now eligible to bid for 

restricted spectrum, e.g., broadcasters, would also face more competition for spectrum. But none 

of the users in these groups presently have unlimited access to spectrum at zero or below-market 

prices. Under our proposal such users would face no administrative restrictions (other than for 

antitrust reasons) on the amount of spectrum they could acquire at market prices. The net effect 

of having more spectrum available, albeit at possibly higher prices, is ambiguous. 

Incumbents with currently flexible spectrum may gain or lose. The price of spectrum 

currently available for high value uses such as PCS, cellular and mobile data will fall as the 

supply of such spectrum increases. Holders of such spectrum will incur a loss due to the reduced 

market value of their spectrum assets. They may also lose from increased competition, because 

of greater access to spectrum by competitors.57 On the other hand, to the extent that such 

incumbents are presently constrained in expanding output and delivering high quality service by 

the high price of flexible spectrum, they may gain. 

Wireless equipment manufacturers may gain or lose. Lowering the price of spectrum should 

increase the demand for wireless devices to the benefit of manufacturers. But certain established 

firms with a comparative advantage in influencing the administrative allocation process to their 

strategic advantage may lose. Innovative firms with new uses or technologies not now permitted 

under restricted allocations may find it easier to gain access to flexibly allocate spectrum through 

the market than to pursue allocation changes through the rulemaking process. Firms that are 

developing software defined radios and other frequency agile technologies or technologies that 

 

57 In a competitive industry, reducing the price of an input can reduce profits by reducing the price of the output by 

shifting out the supply curve. 
40

conserve spectrum and assist in the control of interference may gain from a flexible allocation 

policy that gives licensees greater authority and incentives to manage their spectrum efficiently. 

Lawyers, engineers and lobbyist with expertise in the current spectrum management process 

may lose as well. Those with expertise in market processes, such as economists, are likely to 

gain. Once initiated, a spectrum market should be less costly to maintain than the current 

administrative allocation process, providing a beneficial net reduction in transaction costs. There 

will be start-up costs in developing the necessary market infrastructure for efficient spectrum 

trading and there will be winners and losers resulting from the re-distribution of transaction 

related income. 

The Treasury gains from the increased value of the "white space" spectrum resulting from 

the simultaneous offering of encumbered spectrum, but loses from the increase in supply of 

spectrum competing with the spectrum it holds. 

Whether the FCC, the NTIA and Congress gain or lose depends largely on how gains and 

losses are distributed among their constituencies. Congress has the broadest constituency. It must 

consider the interests of consumers, all commercial and non-commercial spectrum users, 

manufacturers of spectrum using equipment and the Treasury. The FCC’s constituency is 

consumers, non-federal government spectrum users, and manufacturers of spectrum using 

equipment. NTIA’s constituency is federal spectrum users, primarily the Department of Defense. 

Members and staff of the FCC, NTIA and Congress might also consider the effect of 

replacing administrative allocation of spectrum on their future influence, income and resource 

demands. For example, on the one hand, the FCC would gain from not having to make difficult, 

costly and stressful spectrum allocation decisions by administrative process. The agency would 

be able to concentrate its limited resources on more productive activities. On the other hand, 

administrative spectrum allocation is a source of power. With fewer benefits to dispense, 

Commissioners and staff would have less influence both in office and afterwards. 

7 Conclusion 

Reforming spectrum policy is like reforming planned economies. The form of the transition 

from central planning to markets matters, as we have seen in Eastern Europe and Russia. 
41

Markets do not create themselves. The central planners can’t just not show up for work one day 

and expect an efficient transition to markets to occur spontaneously. 

The current administrative allocation of spectrum has led to shortages and waste. Markets 

provide a mechanism for moving spectrum to its highest value uses both now and in the future, 

as technology and consumer preferences change. But removing barriers to flexible use isn’t 

enough to achieve a rapid transition to the market allocation of spectrum for several reasons. It 

doesn't make spectrum held by FCC (and NTIA) available for flexible use. It doesn't reconfigure 

existing spectrum rights into tradable, flexible rights. It doesn't solve the coordination problem of 

ensuring that all interdependent spectrum is up for sale at the same time. And, it doesn't solve the 

incentive problems that may prevent efficiency-enhancing trades. 

We believe that the FCC can play a unique and profound transitional role in addressing these 

issues. We propose that FCC organize a series of large-scale, two-sided spectrum auctions in 

which all spectrum incumbents can voluntarily offer the spectrum they now control, along with 

spectrum held by the FCC. For all spectrum so offered, all restrictions unrelated to interference 

would be removed. Such large-scale band-restructuring auctions would let spectrum users 

quickly unscramble the inefficient spectrum allocations that have resulted from 80 years of 

central planning, allowing spectrum to be used in the manner that best serves the public. 
Appendix: Spectrum Rights and Interference Control Under a Flexible 

Licensing Regime 

As discussed in the body of this paper, achieving an efficient market allocation of spectrum 

requires that spectrum be flexibly, exhaustively and exclusively assigned and that interference 

rights be properly defined. Flexibility allows licensees to move spectrum to higher valued uses; 

exhaustive licensing of spectrum rights assures that all spectrum assets can be combined 

efficiently; and exclusivity internalizes the costs and benefits of spectrum use. A proper 

definition of interference rights between licensees will minimize the total cost of interference, 

which is the sum of the cost of damage from the interference, interference abatement, and 

interference coordination.58 This section compares the way spectrum rights are defined under 

traditional versus flexible licensing; analyzes the problem of interference management under a 

flexible regime; suggests technical rules that may facilitate efficient management of interference; 

and briefly discusses the issue of whether licensees’ right of exclusivity should be limited as a 

way to provide increased access to spectrum for certain kinds of non-interfering uses. 

Flexible versus traditional licenses 

A flexible license defines spectrum rights in a fundamentally different way than does a 

traditional service-specific license. In the traditional licensing approach, the physical dimensions 

of the spectrum assignment are defined on the basis of a specific use, such as broadcasting or 

point-to-point relay service. Traditional licensees are viewed as service providers not spectrum 

managers, and only enough spectrum is assigned to provide a pre-determined service with a predetermined quality and interference. 

Defining traditional licenses is an exercise in detailed central planning. Within a known, 

fixed allocation of spectrum and with information gathered through public consultation on the 

likely demand for the service and various technology and cost factors, the FCC pre-engineers a 

system of assignments that attempts to optimize across a number of conflicting objectives: to 

maximize the number of assignments; to provide sufficient spectrum for each assignment to 

accommodate the desired service functionality and quality; to keep licensee’s system costs to a 

 

58 Demsetz (1972); Calabresi and Melamed (1972). 
43

reasonable level; and to minimize interference between licensees. The result is an engineered 

“grid” of assignments that packs licensees together with only the “minimum necessary” amount 

of spectrum per licensee and with the minimum necessary spacing between licensees (in 

frequency and space) needed to prevent unacceptable interference. Maintaining the integrity of 

this highly engineered grid of spectrum assignments requires that each system’s technical 

specifications be tightly controlled and that any system changes be closely scrutinized. Under the 

traditional assignment, spectrum rights and expectations (both in terms of one’s location in the 

spectrum grid and interference expectations) are precisely defined. The system defines spectrum 

rights with considerable clarity, but provides little room for licensee flexibility.59

In contrast to the service-centric nature of the traditional license, the essential purpose of a 

flexible license is to define a quantity of spectrum within which a licensee can provide a wide 

range of services in response to market forces. Flexible spectrum licensees may or may not be 

the end users or providers of radio services, but may function as managers of physical spectrum 

analogous to the role of land developers in the real estate market. The regulatory problem of 

defining spectrum rights in a flexible regime shifts from defining output services to defining the 

appropriate nature and size of physical spectrum quantities to be assigned initially and setting 

other rules that may be useful to licensees in managing interference with their neighbors. 

The principal dimensions of physical spectrum are frequency, space and time. Assignable 

quantities of spectrum - we will call them “parcels” - can be defined by subdividing along these 

three dimensions.60 The number of different spectrum parcels that can be assigned is the product 

of the number of subdivisions along each dimension. For example, dividing a range of spectrum 

into 5 frequency bands, 6 areas and 2 time periods yields 60 distinct spectrum parcels that can be 

separately assigned. If the time dimension is not subdivided - as it normally is not - the example 

would yield 30 parcels. It is the exclusive assignment of these parcels of physical spectrum, and 

 

59 In some services, e.g., private land mobile and point-to-point relay, the selection of assignments is left to private 

firms or “coordinators” who engineer-in each assignment on a sequential, first-come basis, under detailed technical 

rules laid out by the FCC. But the resulting array of assignments has the same grid-like quality. A detailed 

description of the traditional interference coordination process use in the point-to-point microwave service is 

contained in Williams (1986). 

60 For a more detailed discussion of the problem of dividing physical spectrum rights see De Vany, et. al. (1969) 
44

associated technical rules to control interference between licensees, that define the basic 

spectrum rights of a flexible license. 

Under a flexible license, the licensees themselves are permitted to decide what services to 

provide in response to market forces. In defining flexible licenses, the traditional assignment grid 

is replaced with a much less structured “band plan,” of assignable spectrum parcels. Designing a 

band plan for flexible licenses requires that the FCC make much less detailed assumptions about 

future radio technology and demand for services. While some thought about future uses is 

relevant to decisions about the initial size and configuration of spectrum parcels (e.g., large 

bands vs. small bands, regional vs. nationwide, paired vs. unpaired bands) a high degree of 

regulatory precision is not justified since licensees can readily adjust band and area size in the 

license auction itself and, at a higher cost, in aftermarket trading. The simultaneous auction is 

specifically designed to facilitate efficient aggregations, and further auction improvements such 

as package bidding are being developed. 

Interference between licensees 

Just dividing physical spectrum into parcels and exclusively assigning them does not 

provide a sufficient definition of spectrum rights under flexible licenses since it does not address 

the problem of interference between licensees on different parcels. Interference can occur 

because transmitters do not perfectly contain their emissions within assigned bands and areas and 

receivers do not perfectly screen out emissions in adjacent bands. One approach to interference 

would be to establish a strict liability rule whereby no new use would be permitted to cause any

interference to an existing use without the permission of the injured party. Under such a rule, 

even the slightest potential for interference would trigger a need for coordination with other 

licensees. If interference control requires that licensees coordinate their every move at high cost, 

then much of the benefits of flexibility and exclusivity may be lost. Allowing some level of 

interference without the permission of affected parties is more likely to produce an efficient 

outcome which minimizes the total cost of interference (the sum of the costs of damage, 

abatement and coordination). But defining “acceptable” interference levels is highly subjective 

and requires a priori knowledge about future uses and technologies that is inconsistent with a 

flexible, market regime. Instead, we suggest setting objective limits on some of the principal 

factors that cause interference (e.g., transmitter power at boundaries) and allowing licensees to 
45

deploy unilaterally, and control actual interference, within those limits. There would still be a 

need for coordination but it would be narrowed to circumstances where licensees cannot operate 

efficiently within the pre-established limits - principally near geographic and frequency borders. 

Our suggestions for such limits are discussed below. 

Limiting transmitter spill-over 

 The interference caused by a transmitter’s emission spill-over into adjoining bands and 

areas is a classic externality similar to pollution: the actions of the transmitter owner impose a 

cost on adjoining licensees. Since it is costly for the transmitter owner to reduce spill-overs while 

the benefits are external, the transmitter owner will tend to spill-over excessively. It is generally 

understood that markets do not manage externalities efficiently, and that some degree of 

regulatory intervention may be efficient.61 

While some regulatory limit on transmitter spill-over is likely to be efficient, determining 

the optimal limit requires specific information on costs and benefits that is unlikely to be 

available to the FCC. Therefore, we suggest that regulatory limits on transmitter spill-over be set 

conservatively at “reasonable” levels that can be met at low cost, with further refinement left to 

negotiation between licensees. As with most forms of pollution abatement, a modest limit on 

transmitter spill-over may yield large net benefits because the marginal cost of initial abatement 

tends to be low and the marginal benefit high. We suggest applying a regulatory limit on 

transmitter spill-over at both the area and frequency boundaries of flexible spectrum 

assignments. The values used in the current PCS rules should be appropriate in most instances.62

We note that continued improvement in transmitter filtering technology may make it efficient to 

gradually tighten the limit on adjacent band spill-over, reducing the interference externality and 

making licenses more independent. 

Dealing with strong-signal interference 

There is another class of interference that can occur between licensees operating in adjacent 

bands in the same area that is not addressed by limits on transmitter spill-over. It occurs because 

receivers do not perfectly filter out strong signals in adjacent bands, and it would be a problem 

 

61 Varian (1992), pp. 432-439. 

62 47CFR (2001), §24.236 and 24.238, respectively. 
46

even if transmitter spill-over into the receiver’s band were reduced to zero.63 For a receiver with 

a given filtering capability, the likelihood of this kind of interference increases as the signal from 

the interfering transmitter becomes stronger relative to the desired signal being received. This 

can occur under one or a combination of the following conditions: (a) the receiver is trying to 

receive a very weak signal (characteristic of satellite signals, for example); (b) the interfering 

transmitter is very powerful (e.g., a million watt broadcast station); (c) there is little frequency 

separation between the interfering transmitter and the receiver (they are using frequencies 

immediately across the frequency boundary); or (d) there is little spatial separation between the 

transmitter and receiver (e.g., a PCS transmitter in one pocket and a GPS receiver in the other). 

Stating the conditions that increase the likelihood of strong-signal interference suggests 

ways to reduce it: (1) increase the capability of receivers to filter out adjacent band transmissions 

(increases receiver cost); (2) avoid systems that require reception of very weak signals (may 

render certain technologies and services uneconomic); (3) limit the in-band power of transmitters 

(increases the cost of covering large areas); (4) maintain a minimum frequency separation 

between transmitters and receivers in adjoining bands (requires additional coordination between 

licensees); and (5) increase the distance separation between transmitters and receivers in 

adjoining bands (additional coordination required). All of these measures increase cost, reduce 

flexibility and/or require additional coordination between licensees. For reasons discussed below, 

we believe there is a case for regulating in-band power and in some instances receiver 

performance, but that the other contributing factors should be left to licensees. 

Because increasing in-band power can increase the cost of receiving systems in adjacent 

bands, an externality is caused and the need for some regulation is evident. However, as was the 

case with transmitter spill-over, the goal should be to set a reasonable, not optimal, limit and to 

rely on licensees to reset the limit more optimally through negotiation. The initial limit set by 

regulation should rule out extreme power levels that have little practical benefit but which, if left 

unchecked, could lead to excessive interference risk or harmful strategic behavior. A reasonable 

power limit is one that is high enough to accommodate most anticipated transmitter systems 

 

63 A strong adjacent band signal can “desensitize” a receiver so that it must operate with stronger desired signals 

thus increasing the cost to the receiver owner/licensee. A strong adjacent band signal can also mix with other signals 

in a receiver’s circuitry to produce interfering signals called “intermodulation products” that fall directly within the 

frequency band of the desired signal. Interfering signals that are on the same frequency as the desired signal cannot 

be removed with conventional filtering techniques without also reducing the desired signal. 
47

while helping to constrain “worse case” interference assumptions on the receiving side. A high 

degree of precision in setting the limit is not necessary since licensees will have the ability to 

reset it more optimally through negotiation, albeit also at some cost. 

Limiting transmitter in-band power and spill-over into adjacent bands and areas, together 

with the definition of assigned frequency bands and areas, provides substantial definition to the 

interference environment in which licensees must design their systems. Given these rules, 

licensees should be able to make efficient investment decisions regarding receiver interference 

abatement technology since the costs and benefits of such investment would be internal to 

licensees. Thus, in general, we do not believe that regulation of receiver interference 

performance is necessary. However, receiver regulation may be efficient in the following special 

situations: (1) where the permissible levels of transmitter spill-over and in-band power levels 

have not been clearly defined for adjacent bands and (2) where the FCC itself is acting, and will 

continue to act, as the default system designer and interference manager, e.g., in traditionally 

licensed broadcast bands. 

In the first situation, which may be a transitional condition until spectrum has been broadly 

restructured and exhaustively licensed as proposed in this paper, licensees may under-invest in 

receiver interference performance in developing new systems on the assumption that adjacent 

bands will remain unassigned or that they can acquire additional protection for their receivers 

later through the political process. Once overly susceptible systems have been deployed, 

changing them can be very costly. Under these conditions, excessive restrictions on transmitters 

in adjoining spectrum may be necessary. The result could be to encumber a large amount of 

spectrum well beyond the nominal frequency assignment of the new system without 

consideration of the opportunity cost. This problem can be addressed either by establishing 

default interference levels that licensees must accept from adjacent bands even if those bands 

have not yet been licensed, or by imposing minimum performance standards on receiver 

interference tolerance. We suggest that both approaches be considered. 

The second situation is an artifact of the current process where the FCC itself serves as the 

default band manager and would need to make the efficient trade-offs in receiver performance 

vs. cost, including the opportunity cost of the spectrum. In this environment no party (other than 

the FCC) is in a position to adequately weigh the costs and benefits of better interference 
48

abatement in receivers. Absent a general restructuring of broadcast spectrum for market 

allocation along the lines developed in this paper, the incentives for efficient receiver design will 

continue to be inadequate. In that case, regulatory standards may be the efficient second-best 

solution. 

As a general point, we note that improving technology may make it appropriate to tighten 

limits on transmitter out-of-band emissions and receiver discrimination over time. This would 

allow licensees generally to reduce coordination and tend to commoditize spectrum, thus 

increasing the liquidity and efficiency of the spectrum market. This improvement in market 

efficiency may not be fully appreciated by individual licensees. 

Licensees’ right to exclude non-interfering uses 

While the right to exclude interfering uses facilitates the efficient operation of a spectrum 

market, it is less clear whether a licensee should have the right to exclude non-interfering uses. 

New technologies are emerging that may allow additional, valuable uses of exclusively assigned 

spectrum on a non-interfering basis. One class of non-interfering technology uses emissions that 

are so low in power as to have no perceptible effect on the primary rights owner (e.g., UWB). A 

different, higher power technology, sometimes referred to as “cognitive radios” may be able to 

detect, use and release otherwise unused spectrum on a real-time, opportunistic basis with no 

effect on the primary rights holder. Either technology could theoretically expand the amount of 

spectrum available for other users without the cost of negotiations with primary rights holders 

and without materially degrading the primary licensee’s enjoyment of its spectrum. If this is true, 

there may be merit in allowing such uses on a commons basis as some have proposed.64 

However, there remains considerable question as to the practical feasibility of noninterfering technology of the higher power opportunistic variety. For example, a path obstruction 

such as a hill or large building between an opportunistic device and a protected licensee’s 

transmitter could cause the device to detect a false “opportunity” to transmit, resulting in 

interference to the primary licensee’s receiver in a direction that is not obstructed. The feasibility 

of high power, opportunistic use would depend on finding practical solutions to this and other 

 

64 See, Faulhaber and Farber. (2002) 
49

implementation problems and without imposing significant costs or restrictions on the rights of 

the primary licensees. 

We have the additional concern that high power opportunistic uses, particularly if deployed 

in great numbers under an open commons approach, might be able to acquire de facto “squatter’s 

rights” though the political process (much like poor receivers, discussed above), and thus erode 

the essential rights of primary licensees without consideration of the opportunity cost. Once 

opportunistic devices have populated a band, it may be politically difficult for a primary 

licensees to “evict” them when it needs the spectrum. Primary licensees may effectively be 

locked in and prevented from changing their technology or usage in ways that either reduce the 

spectrum available for opportunistic devices or expose the primary licensee to interference from 

opportunistic devices already in the environment. The possible emergence of squatter’s rights for 

these devices coupled with the lack of price rationing that characterizes a commons approach 

could result in lower valued, opportunistic uses crowding out higher valued uses of the primary 

licensee. So while the potential of this technology is promising, a cautious approach to 

implementation seems appropriate. 

An alternative to the commons approach would be to incorporate the rights to use the 

opportunistic technologies into the flexible overlay licenses that are auctioned in encumbered 

bands. Overlay licenses that have been issued, e.g., in the PCS bands, presently include the right 

to opportunistic use of spectrum in the geographic and frequency domains as part of the “white 

space” around encumbered spectrum. Adding the time dimension would exhaustively license all 

of the usable “white space” in all dimensions and make additional spectrum immediately 

available for market allocation by the overlay licensee without the need to clear or otherwise 

bargain with incumbents. Overlay licensees would have the correct incentives to use these new 

technologies where they are efficient, and potential squatter’s rights problems would have been 

avoided. 
50

References 

37 Concerned Economists. 2001. Comments. Promoting Efficient use of Spectrum Through 

Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets. Before the Federal 

Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 00-230, 7 February. 

Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA-97). U.S. Public Law 105-33 105th Cong., 1st sess., 5 

August 1997. 

Bykowsky, Mark, Robert Cull, and John Ledyard. 2000. "Mutually Destructive Bidding: The 

FCC Auction Design Problem." Journal of Regulatory Economics 17 (May): 205-228. 

Calabresi, Guido, and Douglas A. Melamed. 1972. “Property Rules, Liability Rules, and 

Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral.” Harvard Law Review 85: 1089-1128. 

Clarke, E. H. 1971. “Multipart Pricing of Public Goods.” Public Choice 11:17–33. 

Coase, R. H. 1959. “The Federal Communications Commission.” Journal of Law & Economics 2 

(October): 1-40. 

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47 (47CFR) 2001. 

Communications Act of 1934, As Amended. 

Cramton, Peter. 1995. "Money out of Thin Air: The Nationwide Narrowband PCS Auction." 

Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 4 (no. 2, summer): 267-343. 

Cramton, Peter. 1997. “The FCC Spectrum Auctions: An Early Assessment.” Journal of 

Economics & Management Strategy 6 (no. 3, fall): 431-496. 

Cramton, Peter, Evan Kwerel, and John Williams. 1998. “Efficient Relocation of Spectrum 

Incumbents.” Journal of Law & Economics 41 (October): 647-675. 

Demsetz, Harold. 1972. “When Does the Rule of Liability Matter?” Journal of Legal Studies 1: 

13-28. 

De Vany, Arthur, Ross Eckert, Charles Meyers, Donald O’Hara, and Richard Scott. 1969. “A 

Property System for Market Allocation of the Electromagnetic Spectrum: A Legal-EconomicEngineering Study.” Stanford Law Review (June): 1499-1561 

De Vany, Arthur. 1998. “Implementing a Market-Based Spectrum Policy.” Journal of Law & 

Economics 41 (October): 627-646. 
51

Faulhaber, Gerald and David Farber. 2002. “Spectrum Management: Property Rights, Markets 

and the Commons.” Wharton School Working Paper, University of Pennsylvania. 

Groves, T. 1973. “Incentives in Teams.” Econometrica 41:617–631. 

Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons." Science, 162:1243-1248. 

Hausman, Jerry. 1997. “Valuing the Effect of Regulation on New Services in 

Telecommunications." Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics: 1-38. 

Hazlett, Thomas. 1990. "The Rationality of U.S. Regulation of the Broadcast Spectrum." Journal 

of Law and Economics 23 (no. 1, April): 133-175. 

Hazlett, Thomas. 1998. "Assigning Property Rights to Radio Spectrum Users: Why did FCC 

License Auctions Take 67 Years?" Journal of Law and Economics 41 (no. 2, pt. 2, October): 

529-575. 

Hazlett, Thomas. 2001. “The Wireless Craze, The Unlimited Bandwidth Myth, The Spectrum 

Auction Faux Pas, and the Punchline to Ronald Coase's "Big Joke": An Essay on Airwave 

Allocation Policy.” Harvard Journal of Law and Technology (Spring). 

Hundt, Reed, and Gregory Rosston. 1994. "Spectrum Flexibility Will Promote Competition and 

the Public Interest." IEEE Communications Magazine (December): 2-5. 

Jackson, Charles, Tracey Kelly, and Jeffrey Rohlfs. 1991. "Estimate of the Loss to the United 

States Caused by the FCC's Delay in Licensing Cellular Telecommunications." Washington, DC: 

National Economic Research Associates. 

Katz, Michael. 1996. “Interview with an Umpire.” In The Emerging World of Wireless 

Communications. The Institute for Information Studies at the Aspen Institute, Queenstown, MD: 

1-20. 

Kwerel, Evan, and Alex Felker. 1985. "Using Auctions to Select FCC Licensees." Office of 

Plans and Policy Working Paper No. 16, Federal Communications Commission. 

Kwerel, Evan, and John Williams. 1992. “Changing Channels: Voluntary Reallocation of UHF 

Television Spectrum.” Office of Plans and Policy Working Paper No. 27, Federal 

Communications Commission. 

Kwerel, Evan, and John Williams. 1993. “Moving Toward a Market for Spectrum.” Regulation: 

The Cato Review of Business & Government (no. 2): 53-62. 

Kwerel, Evan, and John Williams. 1998. “Free the Spectrum: Market-Based Spectrum 

Management.” In Regulators’ Revenge: The Future of Telecommunications Deregulation. Edited 

by Tom Bell and Solveig Singleton, Washington, DC: Cato Institute 101-111. 
52

Kwerel, Evan, and Gregory Rosston. 2000. “An Insiders’ View of FCC Spectrum Auctions.” 

Journal of Regulatory Economics 17 (no. 3, May): 253-289. 

Ledyard, John, David Porter and Antonio Rangel. 1997. “Experiments Testing Multiobject 

Allocation Mechanisms.” Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 6 (no. 3, fall): 639-675. 

McMillan, John. 1994. "Selling Spectrum Rights." Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (no. 3, 

summer): 145-162. 

Myerson, R. B., and M. A Satterthwaite. 1983. “Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading.” 

Journal of Economic Theory 28:265–281. 

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 93). U.S. Public Law 103-66. 103rd Cong., 

1st sess., 10 August 1993. 

Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications Act 

(ORBIT Act). 2000. U.S. Pub. Law 106-180, 114 Stat. 48. (47 U.S.C. Section 765(f)). Section 

647 of the Communications Satellite Act. 

Parkes, David, Jayant Kalagnanam, and Marta Eso. 2001. “Achieving Budget-Balance with 

Vickrey-Based Payment Schemes in Exchanges.” IBM Research Report, 23 October. 

Powell, Michael. 2001. “‘Digital Broadband Migration’ Part II.” Press Conference, 23 October, 

Washington, D.C. (http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Powell/2001) 

Riley, John, and William Samuelson.1981. “Optimal Auctions.” The American Economic Review 

71 (no. 3, June):381-392. 

Rohlfs, Jeffrey. 2001. Bandwagon Effects in High Technology Industries. Cambridge, Mass.: 

MIT Press. 

Rosston, Gregory, and Jeffrey Steinberg. 1998. "Using Market-Based Spectrum Policy to 

Promote the Public Interest." Federal Communications Law Journal 50 (no. 1): 87-116. 

Shelanski, Howard, and Peter Huber. “Administrative Creation of Property Rights to Radio 

Spectrum.” Journal of Law & Economics 41 (October): 581-607. 

Tirole, Jean. 1988. Theory of Industrial Organization. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 

U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 1993. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, 8 FCC 

Rcd. 7635, 12 October. 

U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 1994a. Second Report and Order, 

Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, 9 FCC 

Rcd. 2348, 20 April. 
53

U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 1994b. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 

Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services, 9 

FCC Rcd. 4957, 13 June. 

U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 1994c. Fifth Report and Order, 

Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, 9 FCC 

Rcd. 5532, 15 July. 

U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 1994d. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 

Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, 9 FCC 

Rcd. 7684, 17 November. 

U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 1995a. Sixth Report and Order, 

Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, 11 FCC 

Rcd. 136, 18 July. 

U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 1995b. Further Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making, PR Docket No. 92-235, FCC 95- 255, adopted June 15, 1995, and released June 23, 

1995. Examination of Exclusivity and Frequency Assignment Policies of the Private Land 

Mobile Radio Services. 

U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 1997. FCC Report to Congress on Spectrum 

Auctions, 12 FCC Rcd. 10040, 30 September. 

U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 1998a. Fourth Report and Order, 

Amendment to the Commission’s Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for Personal 

Communications Services (PCS) Licensees, 13 FCC Rcd. 15743, 19 August. 

U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2000 Second Report and Order, Service 

Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s 

Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, FCC 00-90 (rel. March 9, 2000) 

U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2001a. Third Report and Order, Service 

Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s 

Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, Carriage of the Transmissions of Digital Broadcast Stations, CS 

Docket No. 98-120, Review of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to 

Digital Television, MM Docket No. 00-39, 16 FCC Rcd 2703 

U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2001b. Fourth Report and Order and Fifth 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum 

Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communication 

Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, FCC 01-10 (rel. January 17, 

2001). 
54

U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2001c. Notice of Proposed Rule Making and 

Order, Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for 

Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, 

including Third Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, , 16 FCC Rcd 596 (2001) 

(New Advanced Wireless Services NPRM). 

U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2002. Report and Order, Reallocation and 

Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), GN Docket 

No. 01-74, FCC 01-364 (rel. Jan. 18, 2002). 

U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (NTIA). 2001. Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, Mandatory Reimbursement Rules for Frequency Band or Geographic 

Relocation of Spectrum-Dependent Systems. Docket No. 001206341-0341-01 (Released January 

18, 2001). 

Varian, Hal. 1992 Microeconomic Analysis, Third Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & 

Company. 

Vickrey, W. 1961. “Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive 

Sealed Tenders.” Journal of Finance 16:8–37. 

Webbink, Douglas. 1980. Frequency Spectrum Deregulation Alternatives.” Office of Plans and 

Policy Working Paper No. 2, Federal Communications Commission. 

Webbink, Douglas. 1987. “Radio Licenses and Frequency Spectrum Use Property Rights.” 

Communications and the Law 9 (June): 3-29. 

White, Lawrence. 2001. “’Propertyzing’ the Electromagnetic Spectrum: Why it is Important and 

How to Begin.” In Communications Deregulation and FCC Reform: What Comes Next? Edited 

by J Eisenach and R. May, Washington, DC: The Progress and Freedom Foundation. (Reprinted 

in 2000. Media Law & Policy 9(1): 19-48.) 

Williams, John R. 1986. “Private Frequency Coordination in the Common Carrier Point-ToPoint Microwave Service.” Office of Plans and Policy Working Paper No. 21, Federal 

Communications Commission. 

Williamson, Oliver. 1989. "Transaction Cost Economics." In Handbook of Industrial 

Organization, edited by Richard Schmalensee and Robert Willig. Amsterdam: North Holland. 
Working Papers Series 

 Office of Plans and Policy 

 Federal Communications Commission 

Broadcast Television: Survivor in a Sea of Competition, by Jonathan Levy, Deputy Chief Economist 

Marcelino Ford-Livene, Office of Plans and Policy and Anne Levine, Media Bureau; Working Paper #37, 

September 2002; 

 

 The Potential Relevance to the United States of the Eurpoean Union’s Newly Adopted Regulatory 

Framework for Telecommunications, by J. Scott Marcus, Office of Plans and Policy; Working 

Paper #36, July 2002; pp. 32 

 Horizontal Concentration in the Cable Television Industry: An Experimental Analysis, by Mark 

M. Bykowsky, William W. Sharkey; Office of Plans and Policy, and Anthony M. Kwasnica; 

Pennsylvania State University, Smeal College of Business Administration; Working Paper #35, 

June 2002; (Revised July 2002); pp. 115 

 A Competitively Neutral Approach to Network Interconnection, by Jay M. Atkinson, 

 Christopher C. Barnekov; Economists in the Competitive Pricing Division, Common Carrier Bureau; 

Working Paper #34, December 6, 2000; pp. 36 

 Bill and Keep at the Central Office As the Efficient Interconnection Regime, by Patrick DeGraba, Deputy 

Chief Economist; Working Paper #33, December 2000. pp. 43 

The Digital Handshake: Connecting Internet Backbones, Michael Kende, Director of 

Internet Policy Analysis; Working Paper #32, September 2000. pp. 50 

The FCC and the Unregulation of the Internet, by Jason Oxman, Counsel for Advanced 

Communications; Working Paper #31, July 1999. pp. 29 

 Internet Over Cable: Defining the Future In Terms of the Past, by Barbara Esbin, Associate Bureau Chief, 

Cable Service Bureau; Working Paper #30, August 1998. pp. 130 

 Digital Tornado: The Internet and Telecommunications Policy, by Kevin Werbach; Working Paper #29, 

March 1997. pp. 98 

 Putting It All Together: The Cost Structure of Personal Communications Services, by David P. Reed; 

Working Paper #28, November 1992. NTIS PB93 114882 pp. 86 

 Changing Channels: Voluntary Reallocation of UHF Television Spectrum, by Evan R. Kwerel and John R. 

Williams; Working Paper #27, November 1992. NTIS PB93 114874 pp. 146 

 Broadcast Television in a Multichannel Marketplace, by Florence Setzer and Jonathan Levy; 

Working Paper #26, June 1991. NTIS #PB91 201749; $23.00; pp. 180 

 What Makes the Dominant Firm Dominant?, by John Haring and Kathy Levitz; 

 Working Paper #25, April 1989. NTIS PB89 190425; pp. 29 

 Through the Looking Glass: Integrated Broadband Networks, Regulatory Policy, and Institutional Change, 

by Robert Pepper; Working Paper #24, November 1988. NTIS #PB89 136923; pp. 106 

 Loosening the Ties that Bind: Regulating the Interstate Telecommunications Market for the 1990's, 

 by Kathleen B. Levitz; Working Paper #23, February 1987. NTIS #PB87 220265; pp. 52